Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Drugs Approvals

Jennifer Willott: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the impact on health services in Wales of the process for approving new drugs.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend regularly meets Cabinet colleagues and discusses a range of issues, including health. Health matters are devolved to the National Assembly. The Assembly Government have to be satisfied of the safety and efficacy of new drugs and weigh the optimum use of resources in different prescribing choices.

Jennifer Willott: Given that more than 40,000 people in Wales suffer from dementia and that four clinically proven drugs that have successfully treated the symptoms of Alzheimer's have been available for several years, does the Minister share my concern that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence withdrew the drugs solely on the ground of cost and thus ignored any consideration of quality of life? Will he get assurances from the Department of Health that NICE will co-operate fully with the Assembly's review of the drugs approval process?

Nick Ainger: The advice that NICE gives is not based purely on cost—far from it. It is based on the total efficacy of a drug. In 2001, based on the information that was available at the time, NICE issued guidance saying that Aricept was suitable for prescription and an effective drug. However, further information has been provided over the past four or five years, so NICE has reviewed its advice. That is its job. It must use the best evidence available. There clearly was not a great deal of evidence at the time at which the decision was taken, but there is now more evidence. It is vital that we get the best resources from our investment in the NHS, and NICE must deal with such issues.

Hywel Williams: Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Scotland Office and the Scottish Parliament because I understand that the process for approving drugs in Scotland can take as little time as a few weeks, rather than the many months that NICE takes? If he finds, as I suspect that he will, that the Scottish model is superior, will he write to Welsh Members to give them his findings?

Nick Ainger: As the hon. Gentleman may well know, Brian Gibbons, the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, is doing such work now. The matter was raised during a recent debate on Herceptin because it appears that the Scottish Medicines Consortium can undertake an analysis of the effectiveness of a drug somewhat more quickly than NICE. Brian Gibbons is holding discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Executive for the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group to find out whether they can work together to ensure that we get the right decision as quickly as possible.

Cheryl Gillan: After the brave Assembly protest by Jayne Sullivan over Herceptin, the judgment this morning that a primary care trust was right to deny the drug to a patient, and the Health Secretary's confusing statement that PCTs should not reject prescribing Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer on the ground of cost, will the Minister agree to press his Labour colleagues in the Department of Health and the Assembly to sort out the confusion over the prescribing of the drug because this vital matter affects all breast cancer patients in England and Wales?

Nick Ainger: The judgment has supported the advice of the Secretary of State that every case should be judged on its merits. That is the current position and I am sure that the Department of Health will reinforce it. Doctors can choose to prescribe unlicensed drugs, such as Herceptin, if, after considering a patient's medical history, they feel that their clinical needs can be best met by using it. The Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that PCTs in England—I am sure that Brian Gibbons in Wales agrees with this—cannot refuse to pay for a drug on the ground of its cost. Each case must be judged on its merits, with a consideration of strong clinical evidence. The drug still has not been licensed for treating early-stage breast cancer and the drug company has not even made an application to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. I hope that Roche will make that application as soon as possible so that the processes can be gone through as quickly as possible.

Policing

Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss policing in Wales.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend and I both believe that an all-Wales strategic force is the most effective way of delivering a safe and secure Wales against threats such as terrorism, serious and organised crime and drug trafficking.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State for repeating that mantra. Given his spectacular refusal to stand up for the Welsh police authorities and the people of Wales, can he envisage any circumstance whatever in which he would be prepared to argue against Government policy in the best interests of the people of Wales?

Peter Hain: I am arguing for Government policy in the best interests of the people of Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) does not seem to be interested in the security of the citizens of north Wales and the rest of Wales. It is not a matter of political mantra. He is defying the recommendation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary that police forces need to be reorganised and that there should be an all-Wales force to tackle essential problems such as global terrorism and serious and organised crime. We simply do not have the capabilities—

Elfyn Llwyd: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We do not have the capabilities in north Wales or the rest of Wales to deal with those new problems. The modern criminal uses sophisticated procedures and techniques, and without a Wales police force that has the capabilities to tackle that we will be neglecting the security not only of his constituents, but of all the people in Wales. That is not only my view; it is the view of the police. He should recognise that he is arguing against the police view and not just the Labour Government's view.

Albert Owen: The HMIC report stresses the importance of security, in particular port security, yet in terms of the port of Holyhead in my constituency and of Mostyn, the recent settlement refers to cutting back on port security to the tune of £150,000, which the chief constable and the police authority say will have to come out of local community policing. Will my right hon. Friend meet the Home Secretary to ensure that port security is given priority now and in any future merger?

Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I met the Home Secretary yesterday to discuss precisely that matter, and today I asked the chief constable of North Wales for his assessment. The example my hon. Friend gives reinforces the case for precisely the reorganisation for which we are arguing. To compensate, there is to be a reduction in resources for neighbourhood policing, whereas if North Wales, through an all-Wales police authority, had the capabilities to deal with the new threats—in this case, drug trafficking through the port of Holyhead—it would not have to take away resources from the neighbourhood level. That is precisely what the reorganisation is all about.

Lembit �pik: Since Labour came to power, the average band D council tax charge in Wales has increased by 85 per cent. Now, we learn from the Welsh Social Justice Minister, Edwina Hart, that police reorganisation would further increase headline council tax charges in south Wales by 3.5 per cent., because of the differential costs of policing in north and south Wales. Will the Secretary of State explain whether abolishing the four police forces will mean that south Wales is made to pay more, or that north Wales has a less-well-funded police service? It is self-evident that the levelling process demands the one or the other.

Peter Hain: I have discussed that very matter with the chief constable of North Wales and it is not clear that that would be the case[Interruption.] In that case, in saying that there is no solution to the problem, the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with the chief constable of North Wales. I suggest that he discusses the matter with the chief constable. The Home Office is considering it now.
	We return to the central point that I put to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), with whom the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) appears to be siding. Are the Liberal Democrats serious about the security of the people of Wales, or not? That is the issue

Lembit �pik: Nonsense.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman says that that is nonsense, but every chief constable recognises that something has to be done. The former Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ronnie Flanagan, says that the present arrangements in Wales are not sufficient to deal with security threats to the people of Wales. We have Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and, I think, the Conservatives, too, opposing the security interests of the people of Waleswhat a terrible position to be in.

Paul Flynn: Is it not a fact that the majority of the people of Wales have rejected that incoherent, uncosted shotgun wedding? When someone suggests that opposing it means that we increase the risk of terrorism in Wales, is that not just cheap, vacuous, desperate scaremongering?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Peter Hain: I am about to provide an answer to my hon. Friendone that comes from the lips of his own chief constable. The chief constable of Gwent said:
	We have more chance to give the public a policing service it desires by looking at the efficiencies of merging the four forces than we have as four forces standing alone.
	Despite my hon. Friend's rhetoric, unless we undertake reorganisation, our police officers in Gwent, north Wales and across Wales will not have the capabilities that the inspector of constabulary, who is not a politician, says that we need to deal with modern forms of threat to our security, including terrorism. If my hon. Friend wishes to ignore that, that is his decision, but I will not do so. As Secretary of State for Wales, I provide the leadership that the Government need to provide to improve security for our citizens.

Cheryl Gillan: I shall give the Secretary of State another chance to answer the question that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked. Twice at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State has failed to answer the question when asked of how much the police mergers will cost taxpayers in Wales. Edwina Hart, the Social Justice Minister in the Assembly, said that in south Wales there will be increase in the precept of 17 per cent. and that council tax bills will increase by 3.5 per cent. Why does she have the figures on a non-devolved matter, but the Secretary of State does not?

Peter Hain: I do not agree with those figures, whoever supplies them. The hon. Lady has not taken account of the fact that up to 50 million will be made available by the Home Secretary for police reorganisation in the coming year, and 75 million the following year. Indeed, the police forces of Wales have, in their own assessment, said that over the years savings will be made as a result of reorganisation.
	It is time that the Conservatives ended their opportunism on the future security of Wales. They played fast and loose with our jobs, our health services and our schools in Wales when they were in power. Now that they are in opposition they are playing fast and loose with the security of Wales.

Welfare Benefits

Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with the Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration in the Welsh Assembly Government on the provision of expert advice for people with welfare benefit problems.

Nick Ainger: I have regular discussions with the Social Justice Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government on a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including access to advice for people with welfare benefit problems.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. What can he do to stop the closure of the Welsh specialist support service by the Legal Services Commission? The service provides advice on welfare benefits, debt and housing to advisers, citizens advice bureaux and solicitors, offering the expert advice that poor and vulnerable people need and deserve.

Nick Ainger: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her interest in the issue and I read carefully the Adjournment debate that she secured on 2 February. I can assure her that the community legal service, which gives advice to about 11,000 people in Wales, will continue to play a vital role. The proposals to change the funding of the specialist service would not cut legal aid, but would refocus 2.9 million on front-line services in England and Wales. As she knows, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), is keeping a close eye on the issue. If there are serious problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) believes, I am sure that they will be addressed. However, if she wishes to raise any issues with me, I am happy to take them up with the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

David Jones: With fewer and fewer legal firms undertaking legal aid work, increasing numbers of disadvantaged people are turning to citizens advice bureaux for legal advice. CABs frequently do not possess sufficient legal expertise to advise on more complex legal problems. How does the Minister propose that CABs should obtain the specialist advice that they currently receive from the specialist support service?

Nick Ainger: To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, the Legal Services Commission has met practitioners and the specialist advice service that previously received funding and which can bid directly for the new money for the front-line services. We will ensure that there is a first-stop shop so that individuals with welfare benefit problems can receive specialist advice on their initial approach, rather than later in the process. That is the thinking behind the proposals, and we have moved that 2.9 million from the specialist services to the front-line so that individuals can access such advice when they make their initial approach.

Betty Williams: In view of that reply, is my hon. Friend aware that the Legal Services Commission did not consult appropriately with the Welsh Assembly Government or practitioners in Wales before that harsh decision was taken? We are bombarded with telephone messages and e-mails from citizens advice bureaux across Wales complaining about the way in which the whole matter has been handled.

Nick Ainger: I know that my hon. Friend made those points during the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan). We are moving from the specialist services currently provided as a second tier on to the first tier, so that when people go to a CAB they will be able to access specialist advice much earlier. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, if there are specific issues affecting Wales directly, I am more than happy to take them up with the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals (Milford Haven)

Stephen Crabb: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government on liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven.

Peter Hain: The two LNG terminals are vital to address a series of energy supply problems and will be a major economic boost to the region.

Stephen Crabb: As the Secretary of State knows, his colleague the Home Secretary came down to Pembrokeshire last April and made a specific promise, namely, that
	the government will certainly meet the costs necessary to address the social consequences
	arising from the massive LNG projects. Given that not one single extra penny has yet been forthcoming from the Treasury or from the National Assembly to address the additional impact on local planning, local housing, transport and other key public services, will the Secretary of State today make good that promise to Pembrokeshire and ensure that local public services get the additional support that they need at this critical time?

Peter Hain: I think that I am right in saying that the Home Secretary spoke specifically about any extra policing needs. As far as I am aware, there are no extra policing needs. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the project. In his press release on 22 November, he stated:
	What we are now seeing in the County is a clear 'LNG effect' with unemployment falling and new jobs being created.
	However, he is right to say that particular stress has been put on the local housing sector. The Assembly Government are working with Pembrokeshire county council to try and address that. It is a temporary problem caused by the huge influx of construction workers, although 80 per cent. of local construction needs on those projects are provided by local labour.

Adam Price: Given that the pipeline from the terminal will, I believe, go through the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, is he aware of the two serious explosions that have occurred on LNG pipelines over the past two years in Belgium and Nigeria, both of which involved large scale fatalities? Is he absolutely satisfied that the proposed route will pose no such risks to his constituents or to mine?

Peter Hain: I am. Indeed, the record of gas pipelines in the United Kingdom is extremely good. I would not take Nigeria as an advert for safety of anything. Although there are particular issuesfor example, in the village of Cilfrew in my constituencyabout where exactly the pipeline is sited, the hon. Gentleman knows the enormous strategic benefit to Wales and the rest of the   UK of the project and the extra gas that will be brought in, providing about 20 per cent. of UK gas needs.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to discuss bovine tuberculosis with the Welsh Assembly Government.

Nick Ainger: I discussed bovine TB control measures with the Assembly's Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside when I last met him on 12 December 2005.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister knows that anything to do with badgers is highly emotional. We all have childhood memories of badger toys, often known as Brock. Are the Government any nearer to finding a system of restricting any proposed cull to infected badgers? What everyone wants is a healthy herd of cattle and healthy badgers.

Nick Ainger: In Wales we have the Wales TB action group, which consists of the state veterinary service Wales, the Wales Young Farmers clubs, the farming unions in Wales, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Countryside Council for Wales, and Wales Environment Link. They have given advice and recommendations to Carwyn Jones, the agriculture and rural affairs Minister. As in England, pre-movement testing is to be introduced, as well as changes in the compensation regime. In Wales, we will test all road-kill badgers to try and establish exactly where the hot spots are. That will inform further studies so that if we move to a cull, it will be in clearly defined areas. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the matter will be dealt with on a considered and rational basis? Is he aware that there is grave disquiet in the scientific community about proceeding on the unproven assumption that there is a link between the badger population and the increase in bovine TB?

Nick Ainger: The Wales TB action group will provide informed advice to the Minister before any decision is taken to cull any badgers anywhere in Wales.

Roger Williams: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noise is unfair on the hon. Gentleman.

Roger Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly have failed to set out guidance on how livestock markets should operate when pre-movement testing for TB is introduced. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that DEFRA and the Assembly make those conditions clear? The matter is important to Brecon market, which will sell at least 1,000 cattle a month in the next few months. In particular, will it be possible to mix cattle under 15 months, which do not require pre-movement testing, and cattle over 15 months, which do, and sell them together?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. I will get a detailed response from the Assembly on the guidance to livestock markets. Many people believe that the failure to carry out pre-movement testing allows TB to move around the country. After foot and mouth, there was a large influx of cattle into Cumbria, which now has a significant TB problem that it did not have before.

Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

Daniel Kawczynski: If he will meet the Secretary of State for Health to discuss the burdens on Royal Shrewsbury hospital arising from cross-border patient flows from mid-Wales.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend regularly meets Cabinet colleagues and discusses a range of issues.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that response, of sorts. The Royal Shrewsbury hospital has had quite a few chief executives over the years, but they all say that the hospital loses between 2 million and 3 million every year in subsidies to patients from across the border in Walesthe Welsh Assembly pays less per patient than English authorities. What is he going to do about it?

Nick Ainger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that an agreement is in place between Powys local health board, which provides patients to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and the hospital, where the chief executive has told us that there is not a problem. This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has complained that patients from Wales cost his trust a lot of money. On 16 December, however, he wrote to the Assembly seeking an assurance that more patients will come to the hospital in order to protect services in Shrewsbury. I am pleased that he recognises the benefits that Welsh patients provide to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital.

Cheryl Gillan: The decision-making process on drugs such as Humira, which involves the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, is now so convoluted that a Welsh patient lying next to an English patient in hospital would not get the same treatment for an identical condition. How can that be right, and what steps will the Minister take to ensure that Welsh patients are not disadvantaged in the future?

Nick Ainger: Well, that is news to meI am staggered by that claim. As I have said, Welsh patients are supporting services in English hospitals. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) recognises that point, because it is important for health services in his area that patients continue to travel into England from Wales.

Private Sector Investment/Employment

Mark Tami: What recent assessment he has made of the level of private sector investment and employment in the Welsh economy.

Peter Hain: The private sector in Wales is thriving. Government policies have resulted in close to record employment in Wales, with 119,000 more people in jobs than in 1997. The private sector accounts for approximately three quarters of all jobs in Wales.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the success of the Deeside industrial park, which has more than 140 companies employing more than 7,000 people. If we are to build on the success of that site, we must not only expand it but improve the infrastructure, which means improving the Wrexham-Bidston line in particular.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a good case. He agrees that his entire region has been transformed under this Labour Government, with massive new investment, huge numbers of new jobs and a booming economy, in contrast to the Tory record. The Conservatives have put the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in charge of economic policy. If he wrecks their economic policy as much as he wrecked Wales when he was Secretary of State, he will do us all a great favour.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Paul Rowen: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 February.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on the birth of his son yesterday. We wish him and his family well.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Paul Rowen: The Leader of the Opposition has offered the support of his party to get the Government's education Bill through the House. Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour is in coalition with the Conservatives in Rochdale? Can he envisage such a thing happening here?

Tony Blair: I do not need to envisage that but can tell the hon. Gentleman as a fact, that, thanks to the Labour Government, we are spending an extra 1,500 per pupil in his constituency, with more teachers, more teaching assistants and greater investment in schools. The results are up as well. The Labour Government are doing a good job, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say so.

Peter Soulsby: In case the Prime Minister finds himself momentarily concerned by the recent Dunfermline and West Fife by-election result, may I ask him to cast his mind back barely 18 months to the similar by-election result in Leicester, South? If he does, he will note the same swing against the Government, the same media predictions of disaster, the same devastation to the Tories, and the same temporary jubilation on the Lib Dem Benches. Will he join me in looking forward with confidence to the same outcome at the next general election?

Tony Blair: We certainly hope that that result will be repeated.

William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and his family, which I will convey to him.
	For the first time in history at Question Time, all three parties are represented by a stand-in for the real leader.
	Does the Prime Minister agree with his former Home Secretary that there was a deep reluctance to act on the information coming out of Abu Hamza's own mouth?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree that there was a reluctance on the part of the services to act. It is important to realise that the services felt that it was only when they raided the home of Abu Hamza in May 2004 that they had sufficient evidence under existing law to prosecute with success. That is, of course, their decision.
	The point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman, and to his hon. Friends who have been asking why action was not taken earlier, is that it is precisely because we want to take action earlier that we need the legislation before the House today. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he understands that he and his colleagues will vote for something today that would significantly dilute and weaken the provisions that attack glorification, which are vital if we are to defend this country successfully against the likes of Abu Hamza.

William Hague: Would not it be better to have a watertight law designed to catch the guilty rather than a press-release law designed to catch the headlines? The Home Secretary said on the radio this morning that he wanted to deal with those who exalt terrorism to try to get young men to behave in an unacceptable way. The Lords amendment, which we support, would create an offence of
	describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.
	Why does the Prime Minister continue to posture on the matter when he could have cross-party agreement, in accordance with the Home Secretary's wishes?

Tony Blair: Let me go straight to the substance of the issue and explain why I disagree profoundly with the right hon. Gentleman. First, if we remove glorification, we send out a massive counterproductive signal. It is a word that members of the public readily know and understand and that juries would understand. It is in the United Nations resolution, and removing it would send completely the wrong signal.
	However, there is another point, on which the right hon. Gentleman touched. Let me explain why I disagree so strongly with the position of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. He mentioned the terms of the amendment that he will support, which is about the listener. It does not cover written statements or images. In other words, it may deal with a sermon but not a placard. It would be incredible at this moment, after what has happened in the past few weeks, if we were to dilute the proposed law in that way.
	As for political press releases, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has been writing in the News of the Worldperfectly understandablyin the past few months. His basic case has been that the Government have not been tough enough. Let me quote what he wrote a short time ago:
	Tony Blair is always telling us to be strong on the war on terror, but there's no point being tough the world over if we can't arrest people in our own backyard.
	That is what he says in the News of World. What he will vote for today is precisely the opposite.

William Hague: What kind of message does it send when someone such as Abu Hamza is at liberty to encourage murder and racial hatred for years on end, as happened under the Government? What sort of message does it convey when the Prime Minister wants to send signals, but people were on the streets two weeks ago inciting violence and murder, and no one has yet been arrested? The Government have let Abu Hamza preach hatred for seven years but have arrested people who heckle the Foreign Secretary at the Labour party conference. There are old powers that the Prime Minister will not use and new powers that we have seen abused.
	It is the opinion of all decent lawyersthe Prime Minister should ask one; he probably has one at homethat the Lords amendment that we support covers more than written statements. That should put his mind at rest. Is not it the case that proper enforcement of existing laws and careful consideration of new ones would be better than the current brand of ineffective authoritarianism?

Tony Blair: I am sorry but, as ever with the right hon. Gentleman, the jokes are good but the judgment less so. Let me explain exactly why he is wrong. The words in the amendment that he and the Liberal Democrats supportI hope that his hon. Friends realise thisrefer to the listener. That does not cover images, placards or written statements. Supporting that would significantly weaken our ability to prosecute the very people about whom he complained on television a couple weeks ago.
	That is not all that the Conservatives have done to weaken the legislation. They would also change the wording of the test from there being an offence if the
	public could reasonably be expected to infer
	to would infer, thus imposing on the prosecution a subjective test, which is harder to prove.
	Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman, all the Conservatives who will vote for the relevant amendment and the Liberal Democrats, would remove any reference to glorification in the proscribed groups. That would significantly weaken our ability to proscribe groups that glorify terrorism. Hon. Members must understand that, if we remove any reference to glorification from the Bill, people outside will infer that we have decided to dilute our law at the very moment when we should strengthen it and send a united signal that we will not tolerate those who glorify terrorism in our country.

Geraldine Smith: More than 100 cancer patients now receive the licensed drug Tarceva, but Morecambe Bay NHS Primary Care Trust refuses to prescribe it to a cancer sufferer in my constituency, Paul Bould, despite the fact that his consultant feels that it could help to prolong his life. Who does the Prime Minister believe should make these life-or-death decisions? Should it be Paul Bould's doctor or an NHS manager?

Tony Blair: Of course my hon. Friend is right to suggest that it should be clinicians who take those decisions. I will look into the specific issue that she has raised, which I was obviously not aware of, and I will write to her about it. Of course, we want to give everyone the drugs that can help to prolong their lives. That is why there has been a massive expansion in the number of people receiving them under this Government, for both cancer and cardiac care, but it is important to ensure that this is done in the most effective way. I will look into the situation of the person my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Menzies Campbell: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of congratulation that the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Would the Prime Minister like to take the opportunity to welcome another new arrival, namely my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie)? If the Prime Minister has any tips on how my hon. Friend should deal with his new constituent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should be very happy to pass them on.
	Rather than creating ambiguous and controversial offences such as the glorification of terrorism, should not the Government introduce the effective and practical measure of permitting the use of telephone intercept evidence in our courts, so that we may bring suspected terrorists to trial?

Tony Blair: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, the reason why there is a debate over intercept evidence is the view of the security servicesnot held throughout our law enforcement servicesthat allowing intercept evidence would damage our ability to prosecute terrorists or those involved in organised crime. That is the reason for it; it has nothing to do with civil liberties or a desire not to take action.
	I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned this matter because he does not want to face up to what he and his colleagues are going to do today. The term glorification is easily understood by members of the public and by juries. They know exactly what it is, and they know exactly what signal we should send out if we removed any reference to it from the legislation today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends should think again. By weakening our law on terrorism at this time from what was proposed, we would send the wrong signal to the whole of the outside world, and we would do no service to those in the police and the law enforcement agencies who are desperately anxious to get on with the job of prosecuting people.

Menzies Campbell: If the Prime Minister thinks that everyone understands the meaning of glorification, he should look at the definition in the Bill, which is opaque, to say the least.
	Telephone intercept evidence is used in almost every other European country, and the problems that the Prime Minister describes can be addressed by adequate safeguards. If that is good enough for them, why is it not good enough for us?

Tony Blair: For the very reasons that our security services have given. I know exactly why the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this issue: he wants to divert attention from the actual issues in the Bill. That is obvious to everyone. Let us be quite clear that this is not only about the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats combining to take glorification out from the offence; it is also about taking out any reference to glorification from the list of proscribed groups. That would mean that we could not proscribe people who were glorifying terrorism, unless it could be proved that they were actively inciting terrorist acts. We have to send a clear message to those groups that that type of behaviour is not tolerated in this country. There is freedom of speech, but it should be exercised responsibly.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend recently had a bad experience flying, or trying to fly, on an out-of-date American aircraft. If he is considering a Blair force one, may I suggest that he looks for modern, reliable Airbus aircraft to operate it?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind advice and pay tribute to all the Airbus employees who do such a marvellous job in his constituency and elsewhere. It is a remarkable example of European co-operation; 30 or 40 years ago, people would have found odd the idea of a European conglomerate being able to compete with Boeing, yet today, it not only competes but does so on equal terms and very effectively.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister will recall the manifesto commitment, and his personal promise in 1999, that anyone who wished to access NHS dentistry services would be able to do so by the end of 2001. It is now 2006, and there is one NHS dentist in north Wales. When, if ever, will the Prime Minister keep his promise?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the huge problem that there is. I am afraid that the only answer is to hire more NHS dentists, which we are doing. We are bringing them in from wherever we can and increasing the number of dentistry places. Unfortunately, however, we cannot force dentists to go back into the national health service.

Adrian Bailey: Cast metal and other metal manufacturers in my constituency are reporting increases in energy prices of up to 50 per cent. for electricity and 300 per cent. for gas, which are considerably higher than those faced by their European counterparts. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what plans the Government have for creating a level playing field in energy costs and supplies for British manufacturing?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue. Tomorrow, the European Commission will produce its interim report on the gas and electricity markets. It is important that a level playing field across Europe is driven through, which is very much in our interests. Obviously, world energy prices have been rising. For the past decade, the UK has had lower energy prices than many other EU member states. It is correct that they have been rising over the past few months, however, and I entirely agree that it is in the interests of our country and the whole European Union that we both liberalise energy markets and create a level playing field for customers in the UK and elsewhere.

St. Kilda Nursing Home (Brixham)

Anthony Steen: If he will make an official visit to St. Kilda nursing home in Brixham.

Tony Blair: Again, I have no current plans to do so.

Anthony Steen: If the Prime Minister had come to St. Kilda's, he would have seen the importance of respite care for the 750,000 people who suffer from Alzheimer's and their carers. Is he aware that mental health trusts are closing down purpose-built respite and residential care facilities and forcing carers to find the money to pay for care that was formerly provided free under the NHS? Will such a facility no longer be provided by the national health service, and will such mental health patients have to find the money to be looked after by carers?

Tony Blair: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those carers who work in nursing homes and look after people suffering from Alzheimer's and related diseases. Ultimately, however, as he will know, it must be for local services to decide how to configure such services within their budget. I understand that a proposal has been put forward for change in the area, and I know that that will be fiercely fought over, as such matters are. I hope that he will understand that, in this instance, it could not be right for central Government to intervene in how local services are provided.

Engagements

Ian Davidson: Will the Prime Minister reject any advice on the subject of the Dunfermline by-election proffered by the elderly toff opposite? Does he accept that the result was not a positive vote in favour of what remains a party of unprincipled opportunism but a vote from loyal Labour supporters indicating that they no longer wish to be taken for granted?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes his point very well.

William Hague: When the Deputy Prime Minister said of local government last week
	if you want to have a unitary then you can have a ballot, discuss it with the people, but if you want it, fine,
	what exactly did he mean?

Tony Blair: I think it is very, very clear. I am just surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot follow it.

William Hague: We were hoping for an up-to-date translation, but what the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to be saying, in his own wayif I can help the Prime Minister on his own Government's policieswas that before any county or district council was abolished, all residents would be able to register their preference in a referendum. That would allow them to keep both the counties and the districts if they wished. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that wherever people vote to keep both counties and districts, they will indeed be retained?

Tony Blair: As one who represents a seat in County Durham, where we have a county and districts and where this debate has been going on certainly for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament, I obviously consider it important for us to proceed by consulting people and ensuring that we take their wishes into account. I understand that we will publish proposals on exactly how that will be done in the coming weeks. There is of course a strong case for unitary authorities, which I happen to support in respect of my own county, but I am sure that many different views will be expressed in my constituency and that of the right hon. Gentleman.

William Hague: I know it is a long time since I have asked the Prime Minister questions, but it seems even longer since we had an answer. Can he not now experience a deathbed conversion to democracy, as the Chancellor asked me to call it, and ensure that the people are listened to, that if they wish to retain their existing local government structures, they are allowed to do so, and that they are given an opportunity to end the drift to regional government that is unelected, unaccountable and utterly unwanted?

Tony Blair: There is no need for a conversion to democracy in my case. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman and I stood in a democratic election in 2001, and I also remember the result.
	We will of course consider carefully what is the best way of consulting people. I would point out that we had a referendum in respect of the regional government assemblies.

Rosie Cooper: My right hon. Friend will be aware of transport problems in rural communities such as my constituency. Will he join me in calling on Lancashire county council and private bus providers not to leave my constituents isolated and excluded from vital public services, including their hospital?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, and her reason for raising it. We have provided substantial fundsabout 1.4 billion a year in England over the past few yearsand will provide further sums over the next few years, but I agree with my hon. Friend that buses are often the backbone of the public transport system. They are essential to tackling congestion, meeting environmental targets and indeed reducing social exclusion. I entirely understand why it is important for us to achieve the right balance between regulation and giving bus services the freedom that they need to operate effectively.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Prime Minister has been to Shrewsbury a number of times, so he will know that Royal Shrewsbury hospital is more than 29 million in debt. Will he give me a public assurance that that debt will not affect services and that there will be no cuts in staff and services at my beloved Royal Shrewsbury hospital?

Tony Blair: Despite my connection with Shrewsbury, of which I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, I believe that it is important for all hospitals to live within their budgetary limits. He will know that health care services in Shrewsbury and elsewhere have received a massive budget increase for the years to come. They will receive further such rises, but, in the end, they must live within their means. As we are making very generous provision for hospitals, I do not think it unreasonable of us to say that there must be proper financial accountability.
	I point out that although the hon. Gentleman did indeed win a seat at the last election, he stood on a platform of opposition to the huge investment that has been made.

Tony Lloyd: The shooting of a police officer in Nottingham is further evidence that the culture of the gun in our society is still in the ascendant. Can the Prime Minister promise the House and the country that he will galvanise everyone, from the police to the courts, into conveying the message that those who own, carry and use guns will be detected and dealt with, and that penalties will accord with what the public believe to be the gravity of the crimes?

Tony Blair: I totally accept the point that my hon. Friend makes and I know that he has campaigned long and hard on this issue over the years. We will all want to give our very best wishes to Miss Bown who was so wrongly and tragically shot in Nottingham yesterday, and to all her family. Let me also say, however, that since we introduced the law establishing a mandatory five-year sentence for the possession of firearms, I think that there has been an impact, but we need to do far more, particularly in relation to organised crime. Over the next few months, we will publish proposals on organised crime that will coincide with the introduction of the new Serious Organised Crime Agency. We need to introduce tougher laws, in the way that we have with antisocial behaviour legislation and, indeed, with terrorist legislation, that make it harder for these people to operate. Much gun crime is associated with drugs, illegal people trafficking and organised crime.

Simon Hughes: Given that since Labour came to power, the average cost of a first home has risen from two and a half times income to more than four times income, and given that the number of people waiting to be housed has risen from 800,000 to 1,400,000, why is the Blair legacy on housing British people at a cost that they can afford so dreadful?

Tony Blair: Great question. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, one reason why house prices have gone up is that we have had an immensely strong economy. One fortunate aspect of that is that the running of it has had nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats. Secondly, in London and elsewhere we have put a lot of money into trying to support first-time home buyers, and we are about to do a lot more. Over the next few years, we are going to help a lot of young people, particularly through shared equity schemes, to own a home for the first time. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the problem, but as ever, his solution is somewhat lacking.

Gordon Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and many Members that the role played by the Bevin boys in the world war two was fundamental to ensuring the defeat of Nazi tyranny? Does he also agree that their role should be officially recognised in a way similar to that in which the role of our world war two combat veterans is recognised?

Tony Blair: I am happy to consider what my hon. Friend has said, and there is no doubt that the Bevin boys played a huge part in defeating Nazi tyranny during the second world war. Our debt to them is one of the reasons why this Government decided that we had to take forward the miners' compensation scheme, which I know has brought help and relief to many thousands of families up and down the United Kingdom.

Stephen Crabb: The Prime Minister is aware that two of the world's largest liquefied natural gas terminals are being built in my constituency immediately alongside two major oil refineries and the UK's largest fuel storage depot, which is three times the size of Buncefield. Cuts to my local fire service will soon leave Pembrokeshire without a single 24-hour fire station. Will the Prime Minister please urgently review this matter and ensure that the people of Pembrokeshire have adequate fire and rescue cover in future?

Tony Blair: I am happy to look into the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have to say that it is obviously important that the fire services, like everyone else, live within their means and configure their services in the most effective way possible. Whatever amount of money we put in, there is always going to be a limit to it; decisions, however, have to be taken locally. I do not know enough about the individual circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's fire service, but I shall certainly look into them and write to him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yesterday, people throughout the country celebrated Valentine's day, but for many, that day had a peculiar poignancy, given the launch in Wales and other parts of the UK of the campaign against domestic violence. During nine months of last year, more than 12,750 domestic violence cases were reported to the South Wales police alone, and they estimate that only 35 per cent. of such cases are actually reported. What more can we as a Government do to tackle domestic violence, and will my right hon. Friend support the role being played by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) in bringing a domestic violence court to Bridgend?

Tony Blair: I cannot tell my hon. Friend exactly what we can do in relation to Bridgend, although I shall be happy to look into it. However, he is right about domestic violence. To date, we have invested somewhere in the region of 70 million, and we will invest even more. We are also providing support for refuges, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is very important that victims of domestic violence come forward and report it in ever larger numbers. I am pleased to say that the police service is handling such complaints a lot more sensitively. The incidence of domestic violence has not risen, but one reason for the increase in recorded violent crime statistics is that people are coming forward and reporting it to the police, who are recording it. That is beneficial. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to support the Corporate Alliance Against Domestic Violence, which was launched about a year ago. It is a very important signal that this Government and our country take domestic violence seriously.

Nigel Waterson: Since I last raised the matter of my local national health service trust with the Prime Minister, matters have gone from bad to worse. Is he aware that there are proposals to close the maternity unit, the special care baby unit and the children's ward? No doubt other features of our local hospital are threatened. Bed blocking in the trust has soared to 100 beds.

Tony Blair: It is also true, of course, that all the waiting times and waiting list targets have been met, but I agree that there are real problems in the health care organisation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where there is a very large deficit. However, it is important to recognise that we have to make sure that the vast additional investment that has gone in is subject to proper systems of financial accountability. We will work with the people organising health care in his constituency, but we cannot say, Whatever your deficit, the Government will come and bail it out. The hon. Gentleman knows that health care in his area has received huge real-terms increases under this Government, far greater than anything put in by the previous Conservative Government, but the money has to be accounted for. If services in an area are not run properly and there is therefore a deficit, I am afraid that we have to tackle that problem. I do not think that it is responsible to suggest otherwise.

Points of Order

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House about the availability of Herceptin on the NHS? Many women across the country will have believed from previous statements from the Secretary of State that the drug would be available on the NHS, but today's court judgment makes it clear that the law and the Department of Health's policy is that its availability should be subject to a postcode lottery.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman applied for an urgent question on this matter. I refused, and I gave no reason. I do not expect the argument to be pursued through a point of order. However, I remind him that there is health debate tomorrow, and he will be quite entitled to raise this very serious matter then.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice and specific help. What can be done to stop the growing contempt that Government Departments display to hon. Members, with information that should be supplied to us in the form of written answers being given to journalists first? On 31 January, I submitted a priority, named-day written question about a constituency private finance initiative scheme. I received a holding answer. Yesterday, 11 working days later, I rang up the relevant Minister's office. The staff there were very helpful and provided me with my answer in the evening. You can imagine my amazement that it took so long to receive that reply, notwithstanding what it says in Erskine May, and when I discovered that on Mondaythe day before I received my answera journalist from the local Essex Chronicle had telephoned the Department of Health's press department, and asked exactly the same question. The answer was e-mailed to him on Monday afternoon, but I did not get a reply from the Minister to the same question until Tuesday. [Hon. Members: Oh.] I think that that is a gross abuse. What can you do, as the defender of Back Benchers' rights, to stop such abuses?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I am very angry that information should have been given to a journalist before it was given to an hon. Member. The journalists in the House of Commons Press Gallery are looked after very well. They are given a great deal of information and have access to debates, the Order Paper and to statements, but they do not have rights before an hon. Member. That should be respected by Ministers and their Departments. I shall investigate this matter.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Energy

Desmond Turner: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Renewable Energy Authority; to lay upon the Authority a duty to promote the use of renewable energy and energy conservation; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is intended as a contribution to the energy review and to climate change policy. It is only a ten-minute Bill so it cannot carry the full story on its face, but it relates to a series of measures that, if enacted, would deliver the aspirations of the 2003 energy White Paper and more, and render the building of a new fleet of nuclear reactors superfluous.
	It is posited that by 2020 there will be a serious generation gap caused by a combination of generating plant closures, failure to achieve sufficient energy savings through increased energy efficiency, failure to reduce the demand for electricity and an insufficient deployment of renewable energy to fill the gap. There is a powerful lobby that draws the conclusion that the logical response is to build new nuclear stations to fill the generating gap and add to reductions in carbon emissions.
	The Bill challenges those assumptionsfirst, that energy savings will not deliver enough and, secondly, that renewables cannot fill the gap. Both of those statements would probably be true if we continued with business as usual, but if we took firm action the outcome for both energy demand reduction and deployment of renewables could be dramatically different. Thus the theme of the Bill is that energy savings of 40 per cent. by 2020 are achievable, and renewable deployment of more than 20 per cent. by 2020 is achievable, given the right policy framework.
	The centrepiece of the Bill is the creation of a new body, the renewable energy authority, with the remit of co-ordinating and driving all aspects of policy relating to the research and development and especially the deployment of renewable energy and amelioration of climate change. It would assume many of the current functions of the Department of Trade and Industry and those of some other bodies. It would drive the renewables option as effectively as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority drove nuclear power in Britain after the war. It would be dedicated to overcoming all the many obstacles that at present impede the progress of renewables.
	The REA would undertake resource surveys of the uniquely rich marine energy resource around the UK coast, identifying prospective sites for generators and conducting environmental impact assessments. The REA would be empowered to license the sites to appropriate developers for the installation of generation equipment. The REA would have a co-ordinating role in ensuring the availability of appropriate grid access to those sites.
	The REA would be accountable to Parliament through a Secretary of State for EnergyI hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy appreciates that I have promoted him, and I am glad to see him in his placeand it would be funded from carbon tax revenue as set out in the proposed fiscal measures that I will come to.
	The planning and consenting regime both on and offshore needs reform and changes to the Town and Country Planning and Electricity Acts would flow from this Bill and would need to be reflected in the coming marine Bill. I propose that the REA should consider all applications for renewable generation, of an appropriate minimum capacity of, say, 50 MW and grid alterations exceeding 120 kV, and if judged to be suitable those would be qualifying applications for a streamlined and simplified planning and consenting procedure operating to a strict time scale.
	The time from notification of outline planning to a decision would be nine months and the Secretary of State would make the decision if the relevant authority failed to deliver it in that time. In some cases, the Secretary of State would be the relevant authority, but the same time frame would apply.
	Another large obstacle for renewables is the current configuration of the transmission grid and the protracted time involved in any major alterations. In addition to the planning aspects of grid restructuring, there would be duties on grid operators such that on receiving consent for installations for a generating plant the grid system operator nearest to the generator would be required to undertake a grid connection and any necessary reinforcement work to a time scale agreed with the generator, but not normally longer than a year. The grid system operator should provide priority access to the grid for renewable plant connected to it whenever it is generating, and should be under an obligation to buy the output of such plant. Those provisions reflect the German renewable energy Act. Grid system operators would be able to recoup their contractually agreed costs for providing grid access through transmission charges, agreed by Ofgem in consultation with the REA and the Secretary of State.
	There are considerable market constraints, even for proven renewables such as offshore wind, and especially for the nascent marine technologies of wave and tidal stream power, as they have not yet had the time in development or the large-scale deployment to achieve the benefits from economies of scale to get their generating costs down to commercially competitive levels. They thus need more support in the market than the current ROCrenewable obligations certificateregime can provide. Even the relatively mature offshore wind process needs the help of capital grants. The REA would be expected to oversee support arrangements to give investors confidence, and the revenue needed for that support would come from a carbon tax, which I shall describe.
	I also propose a raft of measures to improve energy efficiency, which include a requirement for houses in multiple occupation to meet a minimum energy ratingthe standard assessment procedure ratingto qualify for registration, and the prohibition of the sale and use of patio heaters. That probably sounds like a trifling and killjoy measure, but patio heaters account for 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a yearas much as is saved through the changes in vehicle taxation. Their use of energy is entirely profligate and is simply directly to heat the atmosphere.
	We need to enact the European Union directive on the energy performance of buildings. The only measures on energy conservation that Parliament has enacted have been through private Members' legislation or the application of EU directives. We have failed to address the matter properly in the past.
	To fund the REA and provide market support arrangements without recourse to the Treasury, several fiscal measures are proposed for consideration, the central of which is a carbon tax. It has the support of the Royal Society, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology and the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. Coupling the carrot of carbon tax credits with the stick of a carbon tax will provide a method of incentivising the market for newer renewables. It would operate by charging carbon dioxide emitting generators on their output and using the revenue not only to fund the REA but also to provide carbon tax credits for newer renewable generating technologies, to help to give them market pull. Increasing the cost of carbon will also be an incentive for investment in carbon capture and storage. We could also take further measures to encourage the use of biofuels.
	The UK has missed an enormous opportunity by not exploiting combined heat and power. The comparison between the thermal efficiency of Scandinavian countries and subsequent lower carbon dioxide emissions and the position in the UK is staggering. I advocate the establishment of a CHP obligation alongside the renewables obligation and the newly imposed transport fuels obligation.
	My 10 minutes are quickly running out. I have been able to refer only to a few elements of my proposals, but they are intended as a sincere contribution to the energy review and I am confident that if they were enacted we would achieve what we need in terms of our energy policy and climate change.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Desmond Turner, Colin Challen, Mr. David Chaytor, Robert Key, Dr. Ian Gibson, Joan Walley, David Lepper, Helen Goodman and Mr. David Amess.

Energy

Dr. Desmond Turner accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Renewable Energy Authority; to lay upon the Authority a duty to promote the use of renewable energy and energy conservation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 129].

Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 26th October and 9th November 2005 (Terrorism Bill (Programme) and Terrorism Bill (Programme No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1.   Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2.   The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3.   Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments Nos 5, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34 Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments. 
			 Amendments Nos 22, 23, 29, 25 to 27, 1 to 4, 6 to 10, 12 to 14, 16 to 21, 24, 30, 33, 35 to 49. Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	4.   Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	5.   The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a  conclusion one hour after their commencement [Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Terrorism Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1
	  
	Encouragement of Terrorism

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert
	(   )   For the purposes of this section, indirect encouragement comprises themaking of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and Government motions to disagree thereto and Lords amendment No. 34 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.

Charles Clarke: I rise to urge right hon. and hon. Members to disagree to Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34, and to support amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 34. Amendments (a) and (b) are minor, tidying proposals and I do not intend to devote more time to them. The key issue is whether the House will agree with another place and seek to restore its original wording.
	I shall remind the House how we got to this point. We passed counter-terrorist legislation in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, during the debates on which we said we would legislate to make prosecution easier, as required by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Page 53 of Labour's general election manifesto, on which we were elected, stated that
	we will introduce new laws to help catch and convict those involved in helping to plan terrorist activity or who glorify or condone acts of terror.
	That was followed by the awful events of 7 July, which led naturally to a focus on the people who conducted those terrorist acts and on how they were recruited and incited, including through glorification.
	With the agreement of all parties in the House, a new Bill was introduced in the autumn. Of course, there were difficult issues of freedom and securitywe were able to agree with a lot that the Opposition said, but not all. Following that process, the House reached an agreement on the Bill, and that included a commitment to a review of the definitions of terrorism to be conducted by Lord Carlile and to reviews of the operation of the 2005 Act regime as well as a commitment to return to legislation, which will be introduced in the next Session, as I announced in a statement to the House a couple of weeks ago, and which was generally welcomed. I believe that that was a solid and stable basis on which to proceed, not only recognising the genuine differences of opinion but seeking to find a good way to make progress.

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary said, as he did on the Today programme, that the House reached an agreement on these matters. Much as I enjoy reaching agreement with the Home Secretary, I recall that the Government had a majority of one, so I slightly question whether his use of the English language is correct.

Charles Clarke: I do not think that that majority was on this matter, but on Third Reading the House reached an agreement on the way to proceed that resolved all the questions about the Bill.
	After Third Reading, the Opposition parties, which have a majority in the Lords, decided to make Lords amendments to unstitch the solid and stable decision of the elected Chamber. I confirm that the Government areand wereready to compromise to get cross-party agreement. That has been our general approach throughout the passage of the Bill, because if we can secure as much agreement as possible it is a big advantage to the country. However, we are not prepared to compromise on removing the word glorification from the Bill, which would be the effect of the Lords amendments.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a speech in due course. If he will allow me to make my speech, he will no doubt be able to say what he has to say.
	We insist on using the word glorification not merely because it is a manifesto commitment, important though that is in the structure of our democracy, but because the word is specifically used in United Nations Security Council resolution 1624, which was passed on 14 September. The Security Council resolution speaks of
	Condemning also in the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification . . . of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.
	The Government believe that the glorification of terror is an essentialI emphasise that wordmethod that is used by individuals and organisations that pursue terrorist ambitions and wish to get individuals such as the 7/7 bombers to commit to their suicidal and destructive ends.

William Cash: The Home Secretary knows that I have strong views on human rights legislation. However, given that it exists and it is necessary to have clear and unambiguous provisions in relation to matters of such importance, will he explain why the Government have put the statement of compatibility with European convention on human rights on the front of the Bill when the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which Parliament has charged with examining such matters, has said that there is incompatibility with articles 5 and 10 of the convention? Why does he thus continue to pursue his arguments?

Charles Clarke: The order of events is quite clear. I gave the certificate on the basis of advice that I received, and that position stands. The Joint Committee published a reportyesterday, or perhaps todaythat addressed the matter. It reached conclusions on some issues, but not on others. We will, of course, read the report carefully, but I have absolutely no reason to think anything but that my certification of the Bill's compatibility with the convention was entirely correct.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary will know that there is genuine concern in the ethnic minority community, especially the Muslim community, about the effects of the measure. Has he held meetings with the Muslim Council of Britain and other organisations that speak on behalf of the community to take on board their concerns, and to give them a detailed explanation of why the Government are implementing the measure and an assurance that it will not disproportionately affect members of the community?

Charles Clarke: My ministerial and official colleagues and I have held several meetings with the Muslim Council of Britain and a range of other Muslim organisations to discuss precisely that matter. There are concerns, as my hon. Friend correctly says, and I concede that not all of them have been met. However, I take a great deal of strength and fortitude from the fact that, both on the Bill and the general conduct of affairs in recent circumstances, a wide range of mainstream Muslim opinion supports us and condemns those who are extremists and glorifiers.

Peter Kilfoyle: The Home Secretary understandably referred to the United Nations resolution, but will he explain a tautology in the reference that he cited? He quoted the phrase justification or glorification, but that is the only part of the resolution that has in brackets behind it a further explanation: apologie. The only translation of that word that I can find is justification in French, so the principle is being redefined, rather than extended.

Charles Clarke: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The word apologie is French. As he knows, international agreements are produced in English and French, for obvious reasons. It is not a translation error because the word glorification is the English word in the internationally agreed text. The word has importance and significance.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not.
	The question of what each word in any UN declaration means is ultimately a matter for the courts to resolve, but the word chosen by the United Nationsappropriatelywas glorification, which is why I focus on that word.

Sadiq Khan: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and those in the community that it will not be possible to be guilty of the offence if one inadvertently uses language? Will he confirm that the mens rea required will be intention?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. I will talk about the detail in a moment, but he is entirely correct. Part of the debate in this House and the other place has been the intent behind any of these acts. An inadvertent situation of the type that he mentions could not arise.

Dominic Grieve: I was going to intervene on the Home Secretary to offer him the benefit of the fact that I am bilingual in French and English. I was simply going to point out to him that the word apologie cannot be translated as glorification. If that was what was done, it was bunkum.

Charles Clarke: I shall certainly take the opportunity to offer the hon. Gentleman's services to the United Nations as a translator. With his manifold talents in the law and translation, I am sure that he would be a great asset. Although we in the House would miss him greatly if he departed, I am sure that the United Nations would welcome his arrival.

Patrick Cormack: Why is the Home Secretary placing such emphasis on the manifesto commitment? Yesterday, a majority of the Cabinet decided to renege on a manifesto commitment because they thought that certain things had been rather wrongly worked out. Why can he not take account of what the other place has said about this manifesto commitment and accept the sensible amendments that it put before us?

Charles Clarke: I am surprised that a Member of such long-standing and constitutional weight does not acknowledge the importance of manifesto commitments when considering Lords amendments. We were not considering such amendments yesterday and the decisions taken on a free vote went beyond manifesto commitments. I mention the manifesto commitment because there is a difference of opinion between the elected and unelected Chambers. Conventionally, and for good reasons that are accepted on both sides of the House, a manifesto commitment is an important consideration when hon. Members debate Lords amendments.

Tobias Ellwood: It was inappropriate of the Home Secretary to suggest on the radio this morning that Opposition Members are somehow soft on terrorism. We are worried that although the measures in the Bill may already be covered by other laws, more people who normally have absolutely nothing at all to do with terrorism might come under the Bill's footprint.

Charles Clarke: I will address the details in a moment, but on the question of being soft on terrorism, I advise the hon. Gentleman to prove his determination to fight terrorism by voting with the Government today.

Evan Harris: The report to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred was the third report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published several weeks ago. That report addressed the Bill, but the report to which the Home Secretary referred was on renewals. The third report criticises the Bill and says that there is a high risk of it being outside the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights because of the use of the word glorification. The Home Secretary cited the words glorification and justification in the UN resolution, so why do the definitions in clause 20 include no reference to justification? Is that because there are UN terms that even he considers to be too broad to be related to the offence?

Charles Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) if I misunderstood the Committee report to which he was referring. Let me put the position on record. The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed doubts due to the lack of clear intent requirements in clauses 1 and 2. The Government have amended the Bill to make it clear that the offences can be committed only with intent or subjective recklessness, which I believe meets the Joint Committee's concerns.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asks about the wording. Our biggest problem is that there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorisma central issue from which a series of political arguments arise. A number of alternative definitions are used, and this House debated them on Report. I stand readyit is why I have suggested that we consider new legislation based on Alex Carlile's reportto look at the new language that emerges from the UN and elsewhere as a result of the process that is to take place this year, but I regard it as significant that the Security Council included glorification in its resolution.

David Winnick: I recognise that there are concernsthe issue is sensitive and I share the reservations that have been expressed to some extent. However, since we last debated the Bill we have seen the most blatant glorification of acts of terrorismthe events of 7 July. The House discussed that only last week. In other circumstances where there is less publicity, might there not be individuals and small groups who continue to glorify the horrors and atrocities of 7 July, and might not the law that my right hon. Friend proposes be necessary if the Opposition are wrong and the existing law does not cover such activities?

Charles Clarke: I shall deal with that point in more detail later, but my hon. Friend is entirely correct, without qualification, to say that we have to deal with the glorification of terror. If anything was needed to demonstrate that, it was the events of 7 July last year and how they happened. That is what the legislation is designed to do.

Richard Burden: May I take my right hon. Friend back to what our hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) said, and my right hon. Friend repeated, about the importance of linking the offence in the clause with intent or reckless disregard? That change was made between Committee stage and Report. Although that is on the face of the Bill and it is what he is arguing today, in attempting to put water between what the Bill as passed by the Commons would do and what the Lords amendments would do Ministers have sometimes appeared to say that the Bill is intended to go furtherthat it would outlaw glorification of terrorism rather than outlaw glorification of terrorism where there is an intention to encourage terrorism or reckless disregard in that respect. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Bill as he wants it to be passed will not outlaw the glorification of terrorism, but will outlaw the glorification of terrorism where the intent is to encourage people to commit terrorist acts?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. The caution, which I accept, is for Ministers, including me

Richard Burden: I mentioned no names.

Charles Clarke: No names, no pack drill. My hon. Friend cautions us to speak carefully. He is right and I accept what he says.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No. The hon. Gentleman has intervened already and I want to make progress.
	The reason we made a manifesto commitment and why we think glorification should be dealt with as I propose is that people who glorify terrorism help to create a climate in which terrorism is regarded as somehow acceptable. They help to persuade impressionable members of their audiences that they have a moral duty to kill innocent people in pursuit of whatever political or religious ideology they espouse. In recent times, we have seen threats from extremists who claim to represent Islam. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), leaders of the Muslim community in the UK and elsewhere have, quite properly, explained that such views do not represent true Islam. None the less, all too many people may be influenced by those who glorify terrorism and conclude that they have a duty to kill and injure innocent bystanders in the misguided belief that they are bound to do so by their faith. Our duty to those we represent is to do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
	Both Houses have agreed that there will be an offence of encouraging terrorism and that the offence will cover both direct and indirect encouragement. I am, however, concerned by the changes made to clause 1 and replicated in clause 21 by the Members of the other place. The Lords removed a provision which clarified that statements that constituted indirect encouragement included statements that glorified acts of terrorism and were statements from which those members of the audience who heard them could reasonably be expected to infer that what was being glorified was being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances. That was a clear provision in the Bill considered by the Lords. Taken with a definition of glorification in clause 20, it made what was being described perfectly clear. Moreover, it made it abundantly clear to everyone who had heard about the offence that glorifying terrorism in such a way that others might emulate it would no longer be tolerated.
	Instead of that clear provision, which sent a strong message to all those who are involved in recruiting terrorists, the Lords inserted an alternative provision stating that
	'indirect encouragement' comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.
	That alternative is unacceptable for three main reasons. I will explain those reasons in a moment, but perhaps I should first remind the House that glorification features in the Bill as an example of what is encompassed by the concept of indirect encouragement. It is not self-contained. Glorification as an offence is a subset of indirect encouragement as an offence and can be committed only if the conditions surrounding the main offence are met, as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). Key among those conditions is the requirement that there must be an intention that others should be induced to commit terrorist offences or subjective recklessness on that point. Glorification without intention of emulation or without subjective recklessness cannot constitute an offence.
	As I said, the Opposition's preferred form of words is unacceptable for three reasons. First, instead of being an exemplary description of what indirect encouragement could be, it is an exhaustive description. In other words, the offence is limited so that it is committed by making available to the public a statement directly encouraging terrorism, or a statement indirectly encouraging it, but only by actually describing it in such a way that the listener will infer that he should emulate it. The Government drafted the offence carefully so that it would cover all statements that were either an encouragement to terrorism or another form of inducement to terrorism. As we designed the offence, it covered statements that constituted direct and indirect encouragement and that made explicit references to terrorism, as well as those that encouraged terrorism but did not refer explicitly to it.
	Let me put the argument as simply as I can. The use of the word describing in the Lords amendment means that the provision would not catch, as the original wording would, glorification, praise or celebration of an act of terrorism that does not actually describe the act. Similarly, the reference in the wording inserted by the other place to listener also limits the scope of the provision. It confines the definition to statements that are capable of being heard and so, for example, would exclude statements written on placards or published on websites.

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Clarke: I shall not. The hon. Gentleman can make his point when he makes his speech.
	The deficiency becomes particularly obvious in connection with clause 2, which deals with the dissemination of terrorist publications. Those who drafted the Lords amendments perhaps did not intend them to have that narrowing effect, but they unquestionably do have precisely that effect. I regard that as a serious problem because I do not believe that any form of indirect encouragement or other inducement to terrorism should be acceptable. It is also a problem because the Council of Europe offence on which ours is modelled was clear on precisely that point. The offence was intended to capture public provocation, as well as other forms of encouragement or inducement to terrorism. The European convention on the prevention of terrorism includes provocation, so we should include provocation, too. Like glorifying terrorism, it is possible to provoke it without describing or referring to it.

Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say during Prime Minister's Question Time and I am not wholly persuaded by the argument that listening cannot encompass reading. I go to listen to the word of God in church, but that is sometimes communicated in written as well as oral form. If that is the extent of the Home Secretary's anxiety and the Prime Minister's, I am sure that they will agree that it is readily curable. If the Home Secretary gives the House an assurance that he would be happy with their lordships' formula if listener were replaced by some other word that emphasises that the statement can be heard or read, we shall be able to bring these proceedings to a close very quickly.

Charles Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the amendment for which he wishes to vote is entirely deficient in an important way. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why, in debates in the Chamber, can a perfectly clear statement sometimes immediately be distorted by the recipient into something that the plain word misrepresentation could not possibly cover?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order but a matter for debate.

Charles Clarke: I am afraid that I was confused by the   remark by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that listening is the same as reading. Most children, before they reach key stage 2, understand the difference between listening and reading, so I would expect him to acknowledge it. Indeed, I believe that he did so, because he went on to say that the wording for which he wants to vote should be changed, and he invited me to do so. That is the simple point that I was making, but it was only the first of three points of difference that need to be addressed.

Patrick McFadden: Will the Home Secretary clarify something that is viewed as very important outside the House? The vast majority of the public were doubtless horrified by the placards on display two weeks ago after the Danish cartoon affair. If the amendments supported by the Opposition do not cover that situation, does not that show the weakness of their argument and the weakness of the proposal for which they will vote?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I will not comment specifically on the placards used in that demonstration, because the matter is being considered by the police and prosecution authorities, and it is entirely possible that they were illegal under existing legislation. However, placards with wording that is not illegal under existing legislation, but which would be illegal under the proposals, may have been used. Irrespective of that important distinction, the Lords amendment excludes anything visual such as a placard or, rather more significantly, websites. Some websites disseminate the glorification of terrorism, but they are excluded from the Lords amendment.

Edward Garnier: I confess that, despite my surname, I know rather less about the French language than the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, I know a little about the law of publication. We are addressing the publicationthe making known to third partiesof statements that the right hon. Gentleman wants to outlaw. However, as we are on the subject of glorification, and given the muddle that we seem to be getting into, what is the difference between intentional glorification in the sense for which the Home Secretary is arguing and intentional incitement, which is already included in criminal law?

Charles Clarke: The indirect aspect is important. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose legal qualifications and understanding of the matter I respect, does not agree, but we believe that in the overall context of the Bill it is important to outlaw the glorification of terrorism where there is intent, as we have discussed. The Opposition think that it is not important to talk about glorificationthey think that we should talk about indirect encouragement instead. We do not agree.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary deal with two related matters and thus greatly assist me and, I am sure, other Members? If, as he rightly said, glorification is simply an example of offences covered by clause 1, and if it is a particularly obvious example, why is it necessary to include it in the Bill? While we are on the subject, why cannot someone incite by holding a placard?

Charles Clarke: I know that I should not expect the support of my hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby, whatever I say. However, glorification is important in the Government's view because of the clear understanding by the public, the courts and juries both of the word itself and of what is happening. The Opposition do not agree, but we think that it is very important. In addition, our amendments deal directly with placards and such matters. The Lords amendment, however, excludes them.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr.   Speaker. If the Home Secretary is experiencing difficulties because of what he considers omissions in the Lords amendment, can you help him by accepting a manuscript amendment if he submits one?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot do so at this stage, because a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment has already been moved.

Charles Clarke: You could not have made the position clearer, Mr. Speaker. That exchange was extremely helpful, because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield admitted that the Lords amendment was deficient. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I do not wish to be controversial or misleading, so I shall rephrase my remarks. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his contribution that it would be better if the Lords amendment were amended in certain respects, as Hansard will show. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked if that could be done by a manuscript amendment, which you have made clear, Mr.   Speaker, could not be accepted at this stage. That leads me to concludein my own words, not those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfieldthat the Lords amendment is deficient.

Dominic Grieve: I have often participated in Committee, where it is possible to hold lengthy debate on minute areas of textual drafting. I am always prepared to acknowledge that text can be improved or changed. Sometimes that does not make any difference, but sometimes it does, and the difference can provide reassurance. That is why I told the Home Secretary that if that is an obstacle for the Governmentit appeared to cause the Prime Minister enormous anxiety at Prime Minister's Question Timeit is readily curable. If he would like to provide the House with an assurance that the Government would accept the Bill with a cure for that one word, I am sure that we can resolve the debate very quickly. That is as consensual an approach as it is possible to take. I wish that the Home Secretary would take it in good part and respond sensibly, rather than engage in more polemic.

Charles Clarke: I do not think that I have engaged in polemic. It is always entertaining to see qualified lawyersI certainly am not onecounting the angels dancing on the head of a pin in these debates, but I do not accept that I have engaged in polemic. Indeed, quite the opposite.
	I have given the first of three reasons why the Lords amendments should be rejected. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that people who seek to recruit terrorists do so not just by directly encouraging terrorism or by provoking people to commit violent acts but by glorifying terrorism and terrorists. They may emphasise that terrorists are heroes whose actions should be copied; that terrorists go straight to paradise when they die; that terrorists undertake glorious acts that deserve to be emulated; or that terrorists are simply better humans than those of us who are not terrorists. The single word that best captures that is glorification. It is the word that, we all recognise, covers such forms of indirect encouragement. It does not, as I have explained, cover all forms of indirect encouragement, but it does cover those forms. It is that clarity of meaning that makes the word glorification so important. Not only do our electorate know what it means, and not only was it defined with total clarity for the courts, but those who seek to recruit terrorists know what it means. If the legislation outlaws the glorification of terrorism, preachers and proselytisers for terrorism and the organisations with which they work will know that if they glorify terrorism they may fall within the parameters of the offence. If it is not included, they know that they can glorify with impunity. The alternative expression indirect encouragement does not send a strong or clear message. The only message that it sends is that glorification is acceptable.

William Cash: Can the Home Secretary provide one instance in which the word glorification has been defined in the courts as he suggested? There is no such description in any court judgment. As for his general assertion that the proposal will provide clarity, I acknowledge that the Lords amendments may well contain minor defects. None the less, the Home Secretary must surely admit that the Government's proposals are vague and uncertain, and have been condemned by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Charles Clarke: I am glad that a third hon. Member speaking from the Conservative Benches acknowledges that the amendments from the Lords are unclear in certain respects. That helps the debate.

Mike Hancock: The Home Secretary used a strange word just before the previous intervention, when he said that people may be found guilty of glorification. How can the word may be expressed so that people clearly understand that they could glorify something and they might not be committing an offence? What is the distinction?

Charles Clarke: First, the offence depends on the context within which glorification takes place. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield. Secondly, it will be for the court in any given circumstance to judge whether any offence has been committed. That is not a judgment that I can make.

Peter Kilfoyle: Will the Home Secretary accept a definition of glorify as represent as admirable, especially if that is unjustified? That definition is from the Oxford dictionary.

Charles Clarke: I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that the words from the Oxford dictionary are a reasonable way of looking at the word glorification, but my argument is that glorification is a simple and clearly understood word that is very powerful in its own right.

David Gauke: The Home Secretary spoke of sending a clear signal, as did the Prime Minister earlier. Putting aside the concerns that the law is more about indicating what the Government are thinking than about dealing with a real gap in our criminal law, does it not come ill from the Government to talk about sending clear signals, when the immediate response to the disgraceful protests outside the Danish embassy was not to condemn the protesters but to condemn the newspapers that published the cartoons?

Charles Clarke: That point is utterly ridiculous and completely wrong. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement that I made following the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). On the Monday after those events, I came to the House as early as I could to make clear the Government position and I dealt with that explicitly.

Gordon Prentice: I am struggling to think of concrete examples of behaviour that would be caught by the Bill. If someone were to wear a T-shirt, for example, with a picture of Osama bin Laden and underneath the words, Osama needs you, would that fall within the ambit of the Bill?

Charles Clarke: It would depend on the intention. Let us take a simple sentence such as, We glorify the memory of Mohammed Siddique Khan, one of the 7 July bombers. I emphasise again, in response to the comments that have been made, that it would depend on the context, but that is the type of statement that would be covered by the Bill, but would not be covered by general incitement legislation of another type.
	Thirdly, on the Lords amendment, I make a technical point about the drafting of the legislation. As it passed through this House, the offence in clause 1 included a provision that referred to glorification explicitly. The only conclusion to be drawn from the removal of the word is that it will be presumed that the offence was not intended to cover glorification. This view could well be taken by the courts, it would probably be taken by our constituents and, more seriously, it could well be taken by the recruiters of terrorists. This would undermine both the legal effectiveness of the offence and its effectiveness as a deterrent, in a climate where we need to understand that individuals and organisations that promote and glorify terrorism are looking at our decisions and deciding how best to conduct themselves.
	Taken together, the three major reasons that I have outlined mean that we must not agree to the Lords amendments, but should insert the alternative amendments that I propose in lieu of them. We should, particularly in view of the flaws in the Lords amendments that have been acknowledged from the Opposition Benches, even now proceed on the basis of consensus. Indeed, in the spirit of consensus, we have agreed that the offence should be committed only if the requisite mens rea tests are satisfied. Those mental tests are intent and subjective recklessnessthat is, the offence will be committed only if someone encourages terrorism, whether directly or indirectly, including through the glorification of terrorism, intending to encourage it or knowingly taking an unreasonable risk that they will encourage it. In this context, I cannot see why there should be objection to the inclusion of a provision relating to the glorification of terrorism. I hope the House will agree to reject the Lords amendments and accept those that I proposed.

Dominic Grieve: I am happy to speak in French to the Minister if he would prefer me to do so, but that is prohibited by the rules of the House, so I shall refrain from it.
	The Home Secretary comes to the House to make a case for the restoration of the concept of glorification. I think he knows and has acknowledged in the course of interventions that it is a concept hitherto unknown to our law and is undefined. The Home Secretary glossed over the history of the matter. The original announcement, which came from the Prime Minister as much as from anybody else, was that we would have a separate offence of glorification, condoning and exaltation of terrorism. That was the expression.
	What happened, although the Home Secretary seems to be unwilling to admit it in the House this afternoon, is that that idea came in for a massive amount of criticism, to the point where it was entirely rubbished and ridiculed. It was an unworkable proposal. It envisaged putting up a list which, in a convoluted way, meant that there was a 20-year cut-off period for criticisms, to try and get round the problems that it might pose in respect of the African National Congress. It was a dog's breakfast of a proposal and the Government and the Home Secretary wisely abandoned it.
	Having abandoned the proposal, the next problem was to cope with the occupant of No. 10 Downing street, who once he has come out with one of his populist pronouncements, which he thinks has some resonance with the press, decides that the word still has to feature. That seems to be the only reason why glorification was put into clause 1. I say to the Home Secretary that it could be removed in its entirety and the Bill, with the concept of indirect encouragement, would still be perfectly workable. In some cases, glorification might be an example of indirect encouragement, but in other cases it might not. There is no rhyme or reason why it should be there.

Charles Clarke: In his political knockabout, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the word glorification was used in the Labour party manifesto at the general election in May? The suggestion that it was used only after the events of 7 July by the Prime Minister in his statement in August is completely wrong. It was clearly set out in the election manifesto before the 7/7 bombings and is a word that we have thought important, for the reasons that I have given, over a considerable time.

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary helpfully gave us a history of the origin of the word, which lies not in legal text, but in a pronouncement from an international organisation. It is none the worse for that, but translating pious aspirations into sensible law is the job of the House. It is not the job of the House to take every such pious aspiration and repeat it verbatim. The decision to repeat it verbatim was the Prime Minister's when he concluded that there was political mileage in doing so. He kept it up even after I think the Home Secretary pointed out to him that the original idea was entirely unworkable. [Interruption.] In that case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene and explain why the original idea of a separate offence was dropped.

Charles Clarke: The answer is straightforward. We consulted on the proposal and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there were a number of people who thought that it was not correctly constructed. We debated in the House how to deal with it. We made a set of amendments, in the spirit of compromise that I tried to set out. However, I repeat that the word glorification was set out in the Labour party manifesto. It is not an invented word in the populist political way that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary may correct me if I have got it wrong, but I do not think that a separate offence of glorification ever featured in the Bill as published. It featured in the draft Bill. He said that amendments were then made, as though that took place in the Chamber. It did not. There were no such amendments. The Government dropped the concept because it was unworkable. Yet even last night, the Prime Minister's propaganda department was putting out to the pressthat is the way it was reproduced on the news this morningthat what was at stake in the House today was an offence of glorification. That is how it was announced on the 8 o'clock news on Radio 4. It is fascinating to see the No. 10 press unit peddle utterly misleading information, which is accepted verbatim despite its being at complete variance with the facts. The debate involves both a principle and a technical issue, but it has been hijacked by the Prime Minister for narrow party political purposes.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: On the rhyme or reason argument, will the hon. Gentleman address the question of placards, which the Home Secretary has not addressed? It has been stated that without the Bill people cannot be prosecuted for displaying such placards. Why have prosecutions not taken place under the existing incitement legislation?

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Clear criminal offences have been committed under the existing law, and I can see no difficultly in bringing prosecutions. It adds to my concern when I hear the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Home Secretary repeatedly insisting that there is a great difficulty, because neither I nor any lawyer of my acquaintance can perceive it.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to his statement that we do not need the word glorification because the legislation covers the indirect encouragement of terrorism? Can he think of a single example in which a person who could be prosecuted for glorification could not be prosecuted for indirect encouragement in a case that would be likely to be won?

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend brings me on to my next point, which is that indirect encouragement is all that is required to lay the foundations of the offence. However, glorification and indirect encouragement are not identical, and the mischief of using the term glorification is that it undoubtedly extends further.
	In April, the Taoiseach will lead the Irish nation in the celebration and praise of the Easter rising, and I defy the Home Secretary to persuade me or anybody else that that is not glorification within the scope of the lawincidentally, I emphasise that the Taoiseach has good reason to lead such a celebration. That topic is controversial in Ireland: some people see the Easter rising as a historical event that is worthy of commemoration because it was part of a period of national self-assertion, while others see it as a continuing call to armsalthough a ceasefire has been declared in Northern Ireland, some individuals do not respect it.
	If the Taoiseach were to visit this country after that celebration, he would be in serious difficulty under the Bill as draftedthe Government want the Bill as it is drafted. He would have to accept that the celebration was not without controversy, because some people in Ireland say that it might encourage terrorism. Even under the subjective recklessness test, he would not be free of the possibility that his decision would be impugned. If the law were applied impartially, he would have to be jolly careful, because he is not subject to sovereign immunity when he visits this country, and I think that he would be liable to arrest and prosecution following that celebration.
	It is a classic example of the crassness of the Government's approach that they should end up with such a ludicrous state of affairs. The only protection that the Taoiseach or anybody else has is that the Government have smiled sweetly and said, You need not worry, because the exercise of discretion in these matters will mean that no prosecution will actually be brought. That approach is simply ridiculous, when this House can craft legislation that makes sure that such nonsense does not happen and meets the Home Secretary's needs.

Tobias Ellwood: The placards outside the Danish embassy have been mentioned several times. Aside from the sensitivities around removing them at the time, have the police said that arrests were not made because there was not an adequate law under which to make them?

Dominic Grieve: If the police were to say that, they would be wrongit is as simple as that. If the people involved can be identified, there is no reason why they cannot be charged with an offence. It would not even be a question of indirect encouragement, because the incident involved the most direct incitement to violence and murder that one can possibly imagine.
	Abu Hamza was prosecuted under laws dating back to 1861. I know that the world was supposed to have started when new Labour entered government, but perfectly reasonable laws were on the statute book before then.

David Winnick: I was outside the post office in Dublin when Ireland was declared a RepublicI emphasise that that was in 1949 rather than in 1916. Is the hon. Gentleman really comparing the fight for Irish independence against British colonial rule and the American war of independence with modern terrorism such as 7 July? If so, is he not in danger of minimising the horrors that occurred in our country, where more than 50 people were massacred and many others were seriously injured and must live with those injuries for the rest of their lives? How can he compare that event with what happened in Ireland or what is now the United States?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has made my point: I would not seek to equate one event with the other, but the legislation makes no such distinction.
	The definition of terrorism is so wide that it includes the activities of Robin Hood in the 13th century. Helpfully, the Home Secretary has said that he will ask Lord Carlile to review the matter and try to come up with a definition of international terrorism that goes some way to meeting those anxieties, but it is a difficult taskit will take a legal genius to come up with a formula, and I hope that Lord Carlile or someone else can do it. In the meantime, however, we are saddled with a definition of terrorism that covers the activities of the ANC, the IRA and French resistance fighters during the second world war.

Patrick Cormack: EOKA.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed, the definition also covers EOKA, Wat Tyler, Jack Cade and John Ball, so it is pretty wide. In those circumstances, we should restrict the scope of offences and ensure that they are neatly targeted, which is what the House of Lords has attempted to do.

Peter Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman has obviously allowed his mind to roam around possible prosecutions under the Bill as drafted. Returning closer to home, the former hon. Member for Richmond lost her position on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench because she sympathised with the aspirations of suicide bombers. Would she have been liable to prosecution under the Bill?

Dominic Grieve: On the strict textual interpretation of the Bill as the Home Secretary wants it, she is at risk, as indeed is the Prime Minister's wife. That illustrates how ludicrous the Government's approach is.

Adrian Bailey: As a non-lawyer layman, I am always nervous about entering into a debate about definition that seems to be largely conducted by lawyers. It seems to me that given the scale of the problems that we face, it would be better to move towards a definition which provides a greater disincentive to anybody to do or say anything that might be construed as pro-terrorism rather than be a prisoner of the past on other issues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that layman's perspective?

Dominic Grieve: The concept of indirect encouragement is probably sufficient in itself, but it was with a view to trying to encapsulate the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the Lords drafted amendment No. 5. Their intention was to be not oppositional, but conciliatory, to the Government. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard record of the debate in the Lords, he will see that some perfectly respectable people in the other place felt that even this amendment went too far and preferred to keep, without further ado, the straight definition of indirect encouragement. The amendment was intended to encapsulate the issue and to be helpful.

Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the narrowness of the definition in the Lords amendment means that it would not be seen as a disincentive to a whole range of potential offences, and is therefore not conducive to realising the whole objective behind the Bill?

Dominic Grieve: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to my point about the Taoiseach. That is not some far-fetched fantasy but a straightforward present-day reality. I do not wish the Taoiseach to be prosecuted for commemorating and celebrating the Easter rising any more than the hon. Gentleman does, so how do we go about ensuring that that does not happen? Saying that
	'indirect encouragement' comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it
	correctly explains what the House wishes to criminalise. The Taoiseach clearly does not wish people to emulate the Easter rising. That is a good approach that is worthy and should commend itself to the House.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has conceded that his own position is ridiculous. Any celebration of the Easter rising by the Taoiseach would not be done with intent to incite others to commit acts of terrorism or even with subjective recklessness. The Government's wording requires the statement to be one
	from which . . . members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated
	the hon. Gentleman's word
	by them in existing circumstances.
	The Taoiseach's remarks simply would not be caught by this law.

Dominic Grieve: I disagree. Of course the Home Secretary is right that the Taoiseach does not intend people to engage in terrorism, but even in terms of subjective recklessness he is at serious risk. This is a controversial issue in Ireland. Some people look to the Easter rising as an example of what they should be doing today, and the Taoiseach will know that when he stands up and decides for political reasons that it is a risk work taking to repossess from Sinn Fein the celebration of this particular event and to restore it to the mainstream of Irish political life. That is what he is intending to do, but the way in which the Bill has been drafted by the Government does not protect him. There is no point in the Home Secretary shaking his head. The only protection that he has is the Government's discretion not to prosecute him. That is unacceptable. The Home Secretary would have a better case if this were an offence only of specific intent.

Patrick Cormack: As always, my hon. Friend is making his case with great precision and lucidity. Have not the Government recently spent a lot of time in this House trying to distinguish between the sort of terrorism from which we have recently suffered and terrorism in Northern Ireland? A Government who have spent so much time trying to pretend that there are enormous differences between the two are now introducing a Bill that makes nonsense of their own protestations.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. In the context of proscribed organisations, Sinn Fein would have to be proscribed on the spot. That must be the reality of the wording of clause 21. As the Bill is drafted, I do not see how Sinn Fein could survive not being proscribedalthough of course the Government would no doubt exercise their discretion.

Evan Harris: I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Home Secretary rightly said that it criticised the provision on the basis of a lack of restriction on intent and that a concession has been made to deal with that. He also said that the Committee drew attention to the breadth of the definition of terrorism, and rightly said that that was being dealt with indirectly through the review. However, he did not recognise the third criticism, in paragraph 36, of the vagueness of the glorification requirement. Will the hon. Gentleman invite the Home Secretary to meet Liberal Democrat concerns in that respect?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. This went to the heart of the debate in the other place. Lord Morris of Aberavon, a previous Labour Attorney-General and a person of great distinction who has always been a robust supporter of what the Government have generally been attempting to achieve, said:
	This part of the clause is vague, uncertain and unnecessary. It would make it extremely difficult in practice for a judge to be able to direct a jury.
	He went on to say that, under the definition that the Home Secretary wants,
	'glorification' includes any term of praise and celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly.
	He went on:
	I wrote to the Minister, and she kindly replied that she did not feel it would be appropriate for her to prepare draft directions to a jury or to place any example directions in the Library. That was because any directions would have to be related to specific cases under consideration. I have not sat as a recorder for a few years since the age of 65 when the previous Lord Chancellor declared that that was enough. He may well have been right. All recorderspresumably all judgesare supplied with a book of draft directions which are in general and are applied almost every day by judges across the land. The argument that directions would have to be related to specific cases under consideration does not hold water.
	That encapsulates the problem that glorification will pose. The Government would do well to heed what not only Lord Morris, but many others, including previous Law Lords, said in the course of the debateand they were seeking to be conciliatory. Lord Ackner, who is not usually a friend of the Government, said:
	My Lords, I agree that subsection (3) must clearly go, for the reasons which have been fully explained. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that this is no matter of principle but one of drafting.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 576, 580.]
	They were genuinely trying to help the Government, who have closed their ears and eyes to what they have been told. Consequently, this House is in danger of passing law that is unworkable.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real problem is that the Government want to allege that by refuting this idea of glorification, Opposition Members are somehow soft on terrorism. In fact, as I pointed out in an intervention on the Home Secretary, the courts have no definition of glorification. The most that can be said is that there is a public perception of glorification, but that will not help in this instance. What we really want is a clear definition. If an opportunity can be taken to get another definition on its feet before the Bill concludes its passage, that will be the best way of dealing with the problem.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are passing law. Lord Bingham said in the Rimmington case that law had to be clear, precise and adequately defined, based on a rational and discernible principle. That is the problem. Glorification is not clear, precise, adequately defined or based on a rationally discernible principle. By plucking the concept out of the air, the Government will cause themselves and the courts that have to apply the law great difficulties. Like so many other laws that we have passed against terrorism in the past five years, when it is on the statute book, it will turn out that all the prosecutions are brought under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
	In 1998, we passed ludicrous law after the Omagh bombing about conviction on hearsay evidence. Mercifully, it has never been used or had to be used. We pass such law repeatedly and it is irritating when the Prime Minister gets on his hobby-horse, postures to the world, accuses everyone else of being soft on terrorism, gets his cheap headlines, which he wants, and leaves other people to clear up the mess that he created. It is the House's job to ensure that we clear up the mess now.

Stewart Hosie: Does the hon.   Gentleman agree that a glorification charge would be necessary if it were not possible to charge and convictan organisation or an individual under provisions for encouraging, committing, instigating, inciting, commissioning, directly or indirectly, acts of terror or recruiting towards or fundraising for a terrorist organisation? Can he give one example of an organisation anywhere in the universe that would only glorify and not commit one of those other offences?

Dominic Grieve: I agree that that is rather unlikely. That is why we have always believed that clause 1 is a belt-and-braces job. Sometimes belt-and-braces jobs have their place, but if we are to have one, we had better ensure that we are not, in the process, creating a new world where people get criminalised and are placed in a state of deep uncertaintythat is one of the great mischiefs of the measureabout what is proper and what is not. It is all very well saying that one will ultimately be acquitted if the state is foolish enough to prosecute, but most people who enjoy freedom of speech would like the reassurance that, for example, what they say at the commemoration of the Easter rising in a pub in north London in a couple of months will not land them with a knock on the door from the police afterwards. We must take that seriously.
	The Home Secretary has criticised Lords amendment No. 5. As I said, I would be prepared to retain indirect encouragement and nothing else. That is one approach. The Lords have genuinely sought to help the House. If the Home Secretary believes that there are textual criticisms to make, he knew that they could be made from 16 January, after the debate on Report. I do not remember their being made in the debate in the other place. The Government have had plenty of time, if they wanted, to be conciliatory with the other place. They often consider amendments that have been accepted in Committee. I have frequently presented amendments in Committee that the Government say that they will take away, consider and bring back in better drafted form. The Government have had a long time in which to sort out the matter.
	The Prime Minister suddenly appeared to suggest, with such intensity, at the Dispatch Box earlier today that textual criticisms were the Government's objection. If that is the case, I am sure that the matter can be easily resolved. I repeat my offer to the Home Secretary to resolve it. The problem is capable of resolution. However, in the meantime, I am content with the Lords amendment.
	I do not want glorification to be included in the Bill under any circumstances. I shall vote to ensure that that does not happen. If it does, we shall prolong a debate that is unworthy of the House. Glorification has no place in our law. It is incapable of proper interpretation and proper implementation; it risks criminalising those whom the Government do not intend to criminalise and, as a concept, it is frankly rubbish. It is time that the House said that to the Prime Minister even if he, most regrettably, cannot currently understand that.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). He has won three awards in recent months for his parliamentary performance. Perhaps today we should give him an award for fiction. Although he had a good case, he embellished it to such an extent that those of us who may have wanted to support him are unable to do that.
	I want to pick up two points. First, I want to consider the effect of clause 1 and the amendment on especially the Muslim community but also the wider Asian community. I am worried about the mood music of a rush to legislate on a wide range of issues that will affect the ethnic minority communities. I do understand the need for the Government to take strong, tough emergency measures to deal with those who wish to perpetrate or incite terrorism. The Home Secretary knows that I am with him on that because I supported the Government when we considered the matter previously.
	I am worried about passing legislation after legislation, which creates in minds of the wider Asian community the concern that every member is under investigation. That is why we need to deal with the concerns of community groups, members of which are frequent visitors to the Home Secretary's office. They are worried about the way in which the legislation is framed. Moreover, they are worried about its implementation. The Home Secretary and the Government have conducted a proper dialogue with members of those groups since 1997. Recent events mean that it has obviously become much more intense. My right hon. Friend must ensure that the discussion includes reference to the police and that the dialogue is not simply about legislationWe have to do this to respond to the concerns of the wider communitybut about ensuring that, in implementing the law, the police will understand the will of Parliament.

Sadiq Khan: When my hon. Friend considers the disproportionate number of visible minorities and visible Muslims who are stopped and searched, arrested but not charged, and other statistics that he knows, including statistics relating to those detained at Belmarsh, does he agree that, for example, the Independent Police Complaints Commission should examine the entire country holistically rather than each independent police force considering how its officers are accountable?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right that the Independent Police Complaints Commission should examine the matter. Perhaps the reorganisation that the Home Secretary has in mind for the rest of the country means that the point will be covered.
	Those of us who support the Home Secretary want him to go out and spread the message about why the Government are involved in such legislation. It is vital to explain in clear and crisp language that the measures are not being introduced to put the wider Asian community under pressure. Its members have made it clear that they are against those who purvey terrorism and with the Government in trying to ensure that something is done about the terrorists.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency interest in this matter and must therefore be listened to with great care. The Johannesburg principles, with which I dare say he is familiar, set out the criteria for dealing with matters such as freedom of expression. They state that we should take account of the fact that
	some of the most serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms are justified by governments as necessary to protect national security.
	However, they go on to say that it is essential to enact laws that are
	drawn narrowly and with precision, and which ensure the essential requirements of the rule of law.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman's last point is right. Of course it is important in a democracy that we should maintain the rule of law. It is also right that, when community groups and minority groups are likely to be affected by legislation, those groups should be reassured that the legislation is being directed not against them but against the tiny minority of people who seek to subvert democracy by blowing people up as they did on 7 July last year. That is the balance that the Home Secretary has to strike. He needs not only to welcome those groups into his office for discussions, but to send out a clear message to them that they are on our side and we are on their side in dealing with those elements who seek to subvert our democracy.

Gordon Prentice: I am interested in how the legislation would operate in practice. This business about the Taoiseach is a complete diversion. Will my hon. Friend comment on the concrete example given by the Home Secretary earlier, when he said that context would be all-important? If a group of people were parading with placards that said, Free Kashmir now, which is a legitimate aspiration, and there happened to be bombings in Kashmir the day after, could those demonstrators be caught under the legislation after the bombing, even if they had been doing something completely legitimate before the bombing?

Keith Vaz: I know that my hon. Friend has a large Kashmiri constituency base in Pendle, and he is right to say that these practical points need to be addressed. I would hope that such demonstrators should not be prosecuted. I go to many events where such sentiments are expressed, although less so in recent years as the relationship between India and Pakistan has improved.

Dominic Grieve: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and particularly to his response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I appreciate the point that he makes, but does he not understand that the provisions that the Government are asking us to vote on this afternoon will create precisely such a climate of uncertainty in the minds of those Kashmiris as to what is permissible and what is not, and will risk criminalising people who have not the slightest intention of encouraging terrorism, but who wish to have a proper debate on difficult issues of international affairs?

Keith Vaz: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point about uncertainty, but the Home Secretary dealt with that when he told the House why he could not accept the Lords amendment, and I accept what he said. There is certainty in the Bill, but the problem lies in explaining that certainty and sending out the proper message to the various communities. The Government have made it clear, in answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), that this provision is not about inadvertence; it is about subjective recklessness and intent. The fact that the Home Secretary has said that means that that must be the direction in which the police must move when they wish to prosecute.

Philip Hollobone: Even if the hon. Gentleman accepts the Home Secretary's assurances, does he not share my concern that a legitimate demonstration after an awful event in Kashmir might be stopped because of uncertainty among the Kashmiri community about whether they would be prosecuted?

Keith Vaz: As I have said, I do not think that anyone would be prosecuted in those circumstances. I do not think that it would be the Home Secretary's intention. Of course, it would be up to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether a prosecution should take place. The evidence would have to be gathered and presented to the CPS. A prosecution could not be brought automatically just because someone had held up a placard.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I give my Friend another example that is equally apposite? A number of Tamil organisations are banned in this country, yet members of the Tamil community here continue to be very concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka and frequently wish to hold meetings to discuss it. Under the Bill, people attending those meetings could be construed to be supporting the Tamil Tigers and therefore glorifying a form of terrorism. Does my Friend accept that that would present a real danger for the people in that community, and that it would have the effect of reducing or preventing legitimate public debate about Sri Lanka?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about international matters and is a great champion of the ethnic minority communities in London and elsewhere. I do not think that the people he mentions would be caught by the provisions of the Bill; in fact, I am sure that they would not. The uncertainty is being created by some Conservative Members who are seeking to exploit that uncertainty for political advantage, thus making it much more difficult to get the message across. That is why the dialogue that the Home Office has, and that this Home Secretary has created, with the wider Asian communitynot just the Muslim communityis so vital. These provisions are not going to affect only the Muslim community. When a person of Asian origin is stopped in the street, people do not automatically know whether they are a Muslim. The fact is that the legislation will affect a much wider community, which is why it is vital to have this dialogue and to deal with these explanations in a proper way.

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for giving way. Is not the problem that the Government wish to send out a message? It is one thing for Ministers to make speeches and utter statements to indicate the Government's intention to deter and prevent terrorism in the national interest; it is quite another to use the language of a statute as a form of message-making machine. We need clarity and sureness of language in statute, notwithstanding that it might reflect a wider message. The language used in message-giving is entirely different and much looser. That is the problem that the Home Secretary is walking into.

Keith Vaz: The fact is that we have clarity in the Bill because the Home Secretary has listened carefully to the views that have been put forward. He has had many meetings about the provisions. He did not reach agreement with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield or with the Liberal Democrats, but he tried to do so. As a nation, we cannot stand by and do nothing. All communities are united in the belief that something ought to be done, and this is the legislation that the Home Secretary, the Government and their experts believe is necessary to meet the concerns that have been raised. My worry is that, in passing this legislation, we might feel that we have done enough. We have not. We must reinforce what we are doing with the messages that we put out.

Patrick McFadden: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is greater clarity in the Bill than has been implied in questions about Kashmir and the Tamils or, in a completely different dimension, in the Conservatives' suggestion that the Taoiseach might be arrested at Heathrow airport for attending a commemoration of the Easter rising? Is not that clarity provided by the provision that anyone engaged in such an act could
	reasonably be expected to infer
	that someone would emulate them? There is guidance in the legislation that will enable people to draw a distinction between someone making a political point about Kashmir, for example, and someone who is engaged in glorifying terrorism.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That assurance is in the Bill, and the circumstances to which it applies are very clear.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred to the Tamil Tigers, and he will recall that they were proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, based on their behaviour before that act came into force. Colleagues were critical of that decision. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding of clause 21 of the Bill that conduct carried out only after the Bill receives Royal Assent will be considered when assessing whether a group should be proscribed, and that the group's conduct will not be assessed retrospectively?

Keith Vaz: That is my understanding, but I am sure that if I and my hon. Friend are wrong, somebody will correct us before the end of the debatesomebody who knows about these matters, rather than the hon. Member for Beaconsfield who is nodding his head at the moment.
	We need to take great care over the way in which we foster the wonderful race relations that we have in Britain's multicultural society. I came to this country at the age of nine as a first-generation immigrant. I have seen race relations develop to such an extent that we have a proud record to show not just in this country but to Europe and the rest of the world. That is why what happened in France did not happen here. We should take great care of that legacy, however, and when we pass laws that will disproportionately affect a section of our community, we should do so with the utmost care.
	The British Asian community should be able to demonstrate with placards when they feel that there is a grievance, as they did a couple of weeks ago in London. Of course there is a limit to freedom of speechI have acknowledged that for all the time that I have been in Parliament. One cannot just say whatever one wants about different communities and not be subject to the rule of law. The community is mindful of that. Those who step over the line will have to be prosecuted. Within that context and the context of the law, however, the community must be able to demonstrate as it sees fit. If a cartoon is published in a newspaper that defames a particular religion, and groups of our citizens wish to demonstrate against that within the law, they should be entitled to do so. As we all know, because there is unity in the House, the line is drawn at transgression, where something more is asked for than is legitimate in a free and democratic society.
	I understand that the Home Secretary has condemned the insensitivity of some of the things that have happened in the past two weeks but has said clearly that we need laws to deal with those who act to subvert our democracy. He is right to do so. I urge him, as I know that he listens to members of the communities, to continue that dialogue, to explain constantly why we need this legislation and to bring the communities on board. We will not be able to catch the perpetrators of violence unless the communities feel that they have a stake in ensuring that we retain our great vision of a democratic, free and multicultural society.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not intend to detain the House for long, as we have been over this ground several times and I fear that we are in danger of pursuing a debate that might generate more heat than light. However, I commend the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to the Home Secretary. The approach that he advocates, of going out from Whitehall and engaging with communities, is much wiser than that which the Government have hitherto chosen to follow. The obsession with introducing one piece of legislation after another on the basis that something must be seen to be done is not a sustainable approach in the long term.
	On the political context of today's debate, the Home Secretary spoke last week about his wish to build a consensus around terrorism legislation. I took him at his word and was disappointed on Monday to hear the Chancellor of the ExchequerI know how fond the Home Secretary is of himbasically say that anyone who does not agree with the Government is soft on terror. Such language does not really assist the debate. Again, on Today this morning, the Home Secretary spoke about the House of Lords playing politics with terrorism. He only needs to read the report of the debate in another place and he will see that Lords amendment No. 5, with which we are dealing, was brought forward by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a Cross Bencher, and supported by the Bishop of Winchester.
	Clearly, there is a wide concern outside the chattering classes and the political community. I know that Ministers and Secretaries of State in particular sometimes find themselves living in a bubble in which they are insulated from some of those concerns. I ask the Home Secretary to accept, however, that those of us who hold such concerns do so for sincere and deeply felt reasons and that we are not simply engaged in some sort of frolic.
	On the Home Secretary's point that the glorification proposal was in the Labour party manifesto, the manifesto referred not just to glorification but to those who condoned terrorism. Clearly, that proposal has been quietly and properly dropped, but it indicates to me that these daysparticularly in light of last night's eventsthere is a pick-and-mix element to political manifestos. I caution the Home Secretary against relying too much on that point.
	The Liberal Democrats' concerns remain as they have been throughout. First, there is the question of the vagueness of glorification as a term to be used in statute. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made that point in relation to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and he is absolutely right. Three concerns were raised by the Joint Committee, of which the first two have been addressed, but the Government have made no attempt to address the third. For as long as they insist on the maintenance of the term in the Bill, they can make no such attempt, as that circle simply cannot be squared. The Home Secretary accepted in a speech today that we still do not have a proper working definition of terrorism. The effect of that is to have vagueness heaped on vagueness, which results in bad law. I did not come here to enact bad law.
	The Home Secretary told us that glorification is a subset of indirect encouragement. He is absolutely right. That assertion, however, is an admission that the reference to glorification is wholly unnecessary; in fact, it is dangerous. The problem with using exemplars in that way is that they can be seen as in some way restricting the broader term of which they seek to be an example. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that all glorification would be caught by indirect encouragement but that not all indirect encouragement would be caught by glorification. He is absolutely right in that. He will be aware, as those advising the Home Secretary should surely be aware, that it is a simple rule of statutory construction that to express one option is to exclude the others.

William Cash: I do not know why this debate is perhaps more important than the last one on the issue, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not come here to try to produce laws that are unclear, and that we need the definition to be made? Given the importance of the Liberal Democrats in this exercise and in the House of Lords, does he agree that in the interests of the public, whom it is our main objective to serve, we should find some means of delay to which the Government could agree? Rather than rushing the Bill through on a ping-pong basis, we could settle down over the recess and come up with a clearer definition, because neither the amendment nor the Government's proposals are adequate to deal with this serious state of affairs.

Alistair Carmichael: I would certainly never seek to disagree with anyone who suggested that the Liberal Democrats were important, and I have little difficulty in agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is right. I shall say more about this shortly, but it seems to me that there is no real chasm between the two sides. If the Home Secretary sincerely wanted to build consensus, it would not be a particularly difficult task to undertake. It certainly ought to be possible for us and the other place between us to achieve that consensus during the recess next week. Consensus, however, can be achieved only if both sides wish to achieve it.
	I do not think that the root cause of the problem lies in the Home Office; I think that it lies in No. 10 Downing street. There is no political will on the Government's part to achieve the consensus, because it suits them better to dominate the political debate by calling those of us who are on this side of the argument soft on terrorism than to find a workable, sensible, legally enforceable solution.

David Winnick: In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, Lord Carlile, who used to be a Liberal Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, told us that if he had to estimate the number of clerics in the Muslim communitythey are, needless to say, totally unrepresentative of that community and of fellow clericswho are peddling dangerous nonsense, he would say that there were about 20. As I have said in earlier interventions, I recognise the sensitivity of an issue that is not as clear-cut as many of us would like it to be, but is it not possibleI am not speaking as a lawyerthat if the number is anywhere near 20, those clerics could be dealt with under existing law? If that is the position, as the Home Secretary would no doubt argue, is it not quite likely that they could be dealt with by means of the provision on glorification? If that is so, will not the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) concede that there is a case for doing what the Government intend to do?

Alistair Carmichael: The problem with that is that the hon. Gentleman's case has already been undermined by the Home Secretary, who has told us that glorification is a subset of indirect encouragement. That means that nothing said by the imams referred to by my noble and learned Friend Lord Carlile would not be caught by the broader and more general terms of indirect encouragement. The difficulty arises from the baggage that is attached to glorification. I shall say more about that later.
	I want to say something about the Home Secretary's objections to the Lords amendment. He latched on to the word listener. I accept that the wording is not the best possible formulation, and it is not the one that I would have chosen. If the word recipient had been used, with one bound we should all have been free; but instead of trying to work around that, the Government chose to set up a tremendous clash between this House and the other place. As I told the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I think that that can only have more to do with the wider political debate than with the process of securing good, workable legislation.
	Then there is the question of the signal that would be sent to the courts and to terrorists if it were suggested that glorification was somehow acceptable. That has more than a whiff of desperation about it. If it is the strongest argument that the Government can come up with, they are in some trouble. As I said earlier, the Government previously used the word condone in their manifesto. When they dropped that word, did it mean that they suddenly condoned terrorism? I do not think so.

Dominic Grieve: The Government also used the word exalt. I am not entirely sure what they meant by it; the hon. Gentleman may agree that it is a rather undefined phrase. They seem to have been able to drop that without any difficulty.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed. I shall not be too hard on the Government, because I am delighted that they dropped the reference to exaltation, a term which in my view has no place in statute.
	The problem is that the Government have never answered the fundamental question posed by the Opposition: what will this measure add to current law? We can all see the dangers. We can all see the chilling effect that it may have. We can all see the difficulties that may be caused to those of us who may at some time wish to engage in a legitimate protest and to send our support to those in other countries who labour under despotic and violent regimes, but may be prevented from so doing.
	If I may borrow a term from the management-speak of which we hear so much from the Government, I think it is incumbent on us to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. We can all see the cost of the legislation; the benefit is less clear. On that basis, I urge the House to retain the Lords amendments.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall be brief, because I know that many Members wish to speak.
	I urge the House to support Lords amendment No. 5, which effectively does away entirely with clause 1(4). That subsection, like the Bill itself, is unnecessary and, at worst, mischievous. Let me explain why it is unnecessary. I shall do so as simply as I can. I must see the legislation through the dark prism of the eyes of a prosecuting criminal lawyer, and in my time I have prosecuted the worst of them; but when I consider likely offences, I cannot think of an actual orto answer a point made earlieran imagined circumstance involving the imparting of glorification, coupled with encouragement or inducement to emulate, that would not be caught by existing legislation on incitement. I shall be happy if any Member can give me an example of a case in which I would not advise prosecution in such circumstances. I have struggled, and if I could have thought of such an instance, I should have been happy for the Bill to be given a much clearer passage. The fact that no such instance can be imagined, and the fact that the legislation is unnecessary, lead to the inevitable suspicionventilated and articulated in this Housethat the motivation is to persuade the people that the Government are doing something, and, worse still, to provide an alibi for what has not been done in the past.
	Pre-eminent in this context is the case of Mr. Abu Hamza. I do not know why he was not prosecuted months or years ago under existing legislation. I am sure that at some stage those with responsibility, in the Home Office or in the departments directly under its aegis, will explain why Mr. Abu Hamza was not prosecuted months or years ago, together with the other clerics who are spreading violence and the concept of violence, and the encouragement of and incitement to violence that has been described to us.
	Equally, I do not know why those who carried placards during the demonstration that has rightly been referred to many timesplacards that were classic incitements to violencehave not been prosecuted, and were not apprehended at the time. That failure has done no favours at all to the Islamic community. I am afraid that I was not present for Prime Minister's Questionsand I have been told by the Whips that I can go home whenever I like during this debatebut I understand that the Prime Minister suggested that we needed the Bill in order to catch precisely those people who wave placards. I do not know who briefed the Prime Minister, but I can say for certain who did not brief him: the Home Secretary's parliamentary private secretary, my good, learned and honourable Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who would know perfectly well that what those placards contained was a direct incitement to violence. I do not know where that idea came from, but those holding the placards should, and could, have been prosecuted.
	The second issue is the mischief that the use of the term glorification will lead to. Glorification is a wonderful word; it is resonant, rotund, glorious. It has no place whatsoever in criminal jurisprudence and absolutely no place in this particular criminal jurisprudence. In dealing with this desperate and sensitive area of law at this desperate and sensitive time, we must ensure that the law is hard, clinical, analytical, direct and immediately understandable by any who seek to look at it. It must contain the vernacular that underlines all those elements.
	Glorification is a word that is interpreted subjectively, as we wish to interpret it; my glorification is not others'. Without a shadow of doubt, if we pass this legislation the office of the Attorney-General will be besieged by those who believe that what somebody else has saidbe they Islamic or Christian; it does not matterconstitutes a glorification of terrorism. Demands will be made for the Attorney-General to exercise his discretion and if he agrees to do so, it will cause immense trouble and pain. If he does not, that will also cause immense trouble and pain. The problem stems from the use of this word. Glorification is wonderful from the pen of Blake or Milton; it is glorious in the music of Frideric Handel. But we do not do beatitudes in the Old Bailey; rather, we do law, conviction and punishment, which is what should have happened in the case of Abu Hamza and others a very long time ago.
	I hope, even now, that this wholly unnecessary word can be expunged from this statute. Of course, it will not be, but I hope that it will through the accepting of this amendment. I also hope that in future, we will have more necessary and successful prosecutions in the Old Bailey, and fewer wholly unnecessary and grotesquely mischievous attempts at legislation such as this.

John Gummer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The word glorify is meant to be orotund. It is a word used almost exclusively on religious occasions, when it is meant to convey a feeling. It is meant to convey much moreand much more vaguelythan the meaning that it actually has. So it does have a place, but not in law.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) was wrong to say that the Home Secretary, the Government and their experts have concluded that the word glorify is necessary. Only the Prime Minister came to that conclusion, and glorify remains in the Bill in order to save him from the consequences of omitting that word, to which he feels deeply attached.
	No one on either side of the argument can give anything other than a ludicrous example of the difference between a case that could be caught by the term glorify, and one that could be caught by the term indirect encouragement. In other words, the Government have not produced a single example of someone's saying something that manifestly should be prosecuted, but which cannot be prosecuted unless the word glorify is included in this legislation. If the House is to support it, the Government, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety must prove that point. It is no good making vague, suitable-for-the-Today-programme statements that anybody who does not agree with the Government must in some way be nasty. I know that that is a basic new Labour belief, but the truth is that many of us are concerned that the law be enforced, and be seen to be enforced, impartially, particularly on a matter as serious as this.
	Every time that an example of something that would be caught by the term glorify is cited and shown to be ludicrous, the Home Secretary laughs and says, in effect, I wouldn't allow a prosecution on that basis. He has to be saved from himself. We do not want a legal system in which the public and the individual are protected from the rigors of the law not by the law itself, but by a collection of political figures. We want a law thatto paraphrase the hon. and learned Member for Medwayis clear, precise and clinical; we do not want one written in such a way as to extend Ministers' privileges and prerogatives. Having been a Minister for 16 years, I believe that Ministers should be saved from being given an apparently quasi-judicial role; that is not a proper role for them, unless it is utterly necessary in the case of a particular Minister.
	Of course, there are circumstances in which the word glorify is not as otiose as we thinkin which it is, contrary to what the Home Secretary thinks, capable of being used unreasonably. It could have a serious effect on minority communities, and here, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said earlier, although not with the conclusion that he came to. A person who recently preached in the town of Ipswich the particular, in my view rather narrow and extreme, position of a Protestant group was stopped by the police and told that his actionhe felt that he was preaching the gospelwas liable to prosecution on the ground of stirring up religious and racial hatred.
	I believe the policeman in question to be wrong in his interpretation of the law, but I do know the effect of that interpretation on that small and perfectly decentbut, I think, wrongreligious community. They happen to live in my constituency, and they came to me to talk this thing through. They said, We are law-abiding people and we do not wish to be put into a category whereby it may seem, either to us or to others, that we have broken the law. We wish to abide by it. Given their peculiar view of the nature of human law and their desire for a theocracy, that is a very difficult thing for them to say. However, I do not believe that small groups of decent people should be made, in a sense, illegal simply because we think them rather peculiar. Here, I mean peculiar in the technical sense of different from other people. I therefore point out to the Home Secretary that there is a serious reason why the word glorify should not be included in the Billa reason akin to that advanced by the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
	We must also recognise that we are dealing with issues about which the law has to be precise. Such issues of their nature give rise to fervour, and the word glorify is itself a word of fervour. The great music of Steiner is fervour-creating. I very often find myself uplifted by those words and that music, but they are not a suitable subject for law. We have to be very careful, because people who speak about religion often do so with fervour, as it is the most important part of their lives. For believers, it is the most important part of life, so the use of fervent words is not surprising.
	Sometimes, when the Home Secretary describes the sort of statement that he is trying to prevent, he gets pretty close to what is said in the holy books of various religions represented in this country. The step is not a big one. That is partly because holy books were usually written in times and language very different from our own, and partly because they use turns of phrase that are especially difficult to translate into English. The Government must be sensitive to that, and not make matters worse.

William Cash: The Oxford English Dictionary definition is that the word glorification means the praise and worship of God. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a grave danger that the courts will try and construe those words in the context of terrorism, which is what the debate hinges on? If terrorism and religion are conflated, would not the courts have to make a decision based on how praising and worshipping God are interpreted?

John Gummer: My hon. Friend exposes why the use of the word glorification is so uniquely ridiculous, and makes clear how important it is to get this right. It is a delicate matter because it is so close to things that people feel very deeply. In a very delicate eye operation, for example, a tiny move can destroy the eye that was meant to be healed and therefore negate the whole purpose of the operation. The Home Secretary is capable of understanding and sensitivity, and that is why it is worth trying to pursue this matter.
	My final point is a reinterpretation of my first. The matter is very delicate and so needs language that is different from that used to send political messages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) noted, language has many purposes. All hon. Members have a range of different languages. If we used in the House the language that we used to speak to our children when they were young, we would sound pretty peculiar. Some hon. Members use language in the House that would sound better in a bar, while others use language that would sound better at the Bar. Most try to speak in a language suitable for debate.
	It is part of your job, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make sure that in general we abide by language that is suitable for debate. There is no place in the world where people are more careful about the language that is used. Over many years, we have created circumstances that allow us to speak the truth, even if it is extremely hard, in a way that does not lead to brawling. We use the third person, and stand and sit far enough away from each other to make brawling difficult.
	That is important because we recognise that free speech is difficult. It must be nurtured and protected very carefully. One protection is to make sure that we use the right word. Including in the Bill the word glorify would open the door to misunderstanding of what we are about. It would be bad enough if the ethnic communities misunderstood us, but that misunderstanding could reach many small groups in society for which belief in God is the key issue. The language that they use is important to them: they wish to know precisely where they stand, and it is up to this House to make sure that they do.

John McDonnell: We have reached the stage in the debate when it is unlikely that minds will be changed. Some of us probably feel that it is more important to get on the record, so that our constituents and acquaintances know how and why we will vote this evening.
	Many hon. Members consider the day they are first elected to be one of the proudest of their lives. They see that they are about to engage in the governance and future of the country as a whole, and deal with the most serious issues. One of those issues is the security of the country and of the constituents whom we represent.
	Therefore, I resent the fact that this debate has moved away from a serious discussion of the issue in recent weeks, and that the threat from terrorism is used for political advantage rather than as a spur to drawing up appropriate legislation for our statute books. I am critical of all parties in that respect. I am upsetto say the leastto have discovered in the weekend press that Mr. Gould is polling on behalf of the Labour party to see how terrorism plays as an issue in the political debate. I resent the allegations from all sides that people who express a view on the matter can be accused of being soft on terrorism. No one in this Chamber is being soft on terrorism; we are simply trying to find the best way to confront and end it. I am also concerned by the ludicrous examples that some Opposition Members have used, as they trivialise the debate.
	The debate on this amendment centres on the following questions. Is it necessary? Do the Government's proposals represent an appropriate alternative? Is the expression of those proposals appropriate, or could there be unforeseen consequences?
	Many hon. Members have tried to consult as best they can on those questions. A group of us met Gareth Peirce, a lawyer who, as many will know, has been involved in terrorism cases for nearly 30 years. We first came across her when we asked her to engage in the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases. She should know whether enough statutes already exist to prosecute terrorists as she has already defended people accused of carrying out terrorist acts: some were innocent, others may well have been guilty.
	Gareth Peirce's response was very concise. Why are we bringing in this Bill? The common law offence of incitement has been a crime for more than two centuries. Incitement to murder, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), is contained in section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which says that it is an offence to
	encourage . . . any person to murder any other person.
	Again, incitement to violence is covered by section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, which states that it is a criminal offence to use
	threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour . . . whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used.
	Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to invite support for proscribed terrorist organisations. Moreover, it is not as though all that legislation has not led to prosecutions, the most recent being the Hamza case.
	My worry is based on my experience with legislation that is worded so broadly that it is ineffective and can be used to entrap the innocent. There are unforeseen consequences when we in this House legislate poorly. We should learn the lessons of the original prevention of terrorism legislation, which was used first of all against Irish republicans and which allowed the police and other authorities to undertake widespread sweeps of that community. Those sweeps caught up the innocent who were then, in many instances, subject to miscarriages of justice. We make people vulnerable when we legislate unclearly and with such a breadth of impact as this legislation would have, and that is my worry.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of the prevention of terrorism Actsand, indeed, the current proscribed listswas often to choke off legitimate political debate and drive some people into the arms of extremists and others with bad intentions, whereas they should be brought into mainstream political discussion and debate?

John McDonnell: That is another of the unforeseen consequences of badly drafted legislation. The innocent may suffer and others may be mobilised. Protections are proposed, such as the use of discretion, and we have been given assurances on the Floor of the House about the way in which the legislation will be used. However, I remind the House of when we debated the most recent anti-terror legislation. We sought assurances at that stage from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was then a junior Minister at the Home Office, on whether peaceful demonstrators would be caught by that legislation. We were assured that peaceful demonstrators would not be affected by it and would not be liable to arrest. Within eight weeks, peace campaigners demonstrating outside an arms fair in east London were arrested under that legislation despite the assurances given on the Floor of the House. The bizarre experiences at Labour party conferencenot just of Walter Wolfgang but the 460 other people who were detained under the legislationgave the lie to the assurances that were given.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr.   Prentice) made the point with regard to the Kashmiris and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made it with regard to the Tamils. I have many Sikhs in my constituency, some of whom support the cause of Khalistan, and terrorist activity has been associated with that cause. Those constituents become vulnerable under this legislation on the issue of the interpretation of reckless behaviour because they will glorify the concept of Khalistan as a legitimate objective for people within the Punjab. They might be caught out by sweeps that bring the innocent before the courts, and an inaccurate interpretation of some of this legislation might leave them vulnerable.
	The reason why some of us support the Lords amendment is thatdespite opposing the concept in principleit gives more certainty that the legislation will not be used in sweeps, to arrest the innocent or cause miscarriages of justice. It is for those practical reasons that I support the Lords amendment, not for any attempt to make political capital out of the issue, which I regret has been done so far. As a Londoner, I find it distasteful that the July bombings have been used to justify some of the measures in the legislation for party political purposes, rather than for their effect.

Ann Widdecombe: I admit that I have been in a dilemma during much of the passage of the Bill and, at times, I believed that the Government had got it right. For example, I believe that they were probably right about 90 days, and I would certainly have votedhad I had the opportunityfor 60 days. Therefore, I looked very carefully at this issue before deciding the appropriate course of action.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had made the speech that he made today a few years ago, I would have told him to have a week's rest and a pair of aspirin, but today it rang horribly true. That is why I do not believe that the examples he gave were in any way trivial. When we make law in this place, we do not make it in a vacuum. We have to consider not only what we are doing, but the atmosphere in which the law will be implemented. We have to ask whether we have confidence that the implementation of the law will be moderated by the spirit intended, rather than simply carried out according to its letter. We have to ask whether we believe that we live in a state that is moderate, restrained and limited in the way that it intervenes in the name of law.
	A few years ago, I would have said that, by and largeeven then I could have thought of a few exceptionswe live in such a state. The reason that I sit on this side of the House is that I believe, both intellectually and emotionally, that the power of the state to intervene in our lives, and the power of its agents to intervene in our lives, should be as limited as is compatible with the right and just functioning of society. Today, I do not believe that we live in such a state.
	We have the ludicrous examples of agents of law and order enforcement spending four days in the bushes to catch someone feeding birds. That is a ludicrous example, but it is real. A more worrying example is that the chief constable of Walesnot some misguided Mr. Plodbelieves that it is appropriate to investigate the Prime Minister for making a disobliging comment to his own television set.
	Vastly more worrying even than that example, as I said during the progress of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, is that we have seen four or five examples of the police intervening when no crime had been committed or threat uttered but a view had been expressed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave another example. Therefore, I ask myself whether I am confident that the   Bill, if we pass it today in the form in which the Government have drawn it up, will be applied with the common-sense restraint suggested by the Home Secretary. Given all the evidence that now confronts us on how law and order is being implemented, I do not have that confidence.
	I have a dilemma. I appreciate that the Government believe that the other place has redrawn the provision too narrowly and that people who should be caught by the Bill will not be so caught. The Opposition contend that the Government have drawn the provision so widely that many people who should not be caught will be caught. I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash): if possible, we should not look at each other over gun barrels but do a bit of parleying. It seems to me that we are so close in what we want to do that we could achieve a wording that meets the objections of both sides. If we could do that, the issue would not be about who will win and who will lose but about making good law to govern our country. I believe strongly that we should make a last-ditch attempt to come up with a wording that meets the objections of both sides.
	I have a further dilemma because, in an ideal world, I would like to live in a society in which one could say that Osama bin Laden was the best thing since sliced bread. I would like people to be free to say that and for it to be left to social disapproval and pressure, rather than the blunt instrument of the law, to convince them that they were wrong. However, I accept that in the circumstances that is quite impossible and that 7 July, which the Government were right to invoke, changed things and that there is now a small section of the population who are sufficiently volatile as to be incited to action. Therefore, those who incite them should be answerable under the law even if that means that we have to limit severely the exercising of free speech.
	I believe that has to be done and that what the Government are trying to do is right. I believe that we can find a form of wording that will suit us all and convince us all, and that we have a duty to do so. In the last analysis, however, especially after what has happened over the past few months, with the police knocking on people's doors claiming that they have offended against the law when all they have done is express a point of view and with those actions being upheld at the most senior level in the police instead of being derided, I have no confidence that the law will be applied with the moderation and restraint necessary to convince me that we still live in a Britain that prizes freedom above all else.
	I am not a million miles from the Government's view, so it is with great reluctance that I do not support the proposed wording. I make this final plea, however: we can get there with mutually agreed wording so let us invoke the procedures that will allow us to do so.

Richard Burden: I am saddened that we have to hold this debate, because I am not sure that it is necessary. When we discussed the matter in Committee, there were big differences and I was one of those who expressed reservations about what the Government were trying to do with the glorification offence.
	I still have those reservations. Nevertheless, there was some movement by the Government between Committee and Report and we arrived at a form of words, which was still not perfect but allowed us to postpone discussion of our reservations until next year. Everything has to rely on Lord Carlile's report and in our debates we will have to reach a definition of terrorism that we think makes sense. As a result, I am not sure why the other place felt it so important to make the deletions, but equally I do not understand why the Government feel it so important to reinsert the word glorification.
	I am worried that we may be slipping back almost to the position before Report. Last week, the Prime Minister said:
	It is important that we send out a very strong signal that any group, or people, who glorify terrorism in any way at all will be committing a criminal offence and that those groups that rely on glorifying terrorism to attract recruits should not be able to operate in our society.[Official Report, 8 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 870.]
	I find it difficult to reconcile those comments with the assurances that I and others received today from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that we are not drifting back. I appreciate those reassurances, but I am worried that the focus is starting to turn backcertainly in terms of the signals that are being sent out, although I agree with Ministers that the signals are importantto saying that if somebody says something vile or abhorrent on terrorism, priority will be given to criminalising that utterance rather than working out the most effective way of stopping the actions that the person is glorifying. My opinion about that is stronger than it was in November.
	Several people have given examples that are relevant, but easy to understand, such as Nelson Mandela, Chile or Wat Tyler. I want to discuss an example that is difficult and profoundly troubling for all of us. I was one of the international observers at the recent Palestinian elections when Hamas was elected with a parliamentary majority in a free and fair vote. Members of Hamas have been responsible for some appalling attacks that are unquestionably definable as terrorist. We are all agreed about how important it is that the international community make clear our abhorrence of such attacks and what Hamas should do. When I met members of Hamas in Gaza, I told them thatas did some of my hon. Friends. I am told that those conversations played a part, albeit a small one, in convincing members of Hamas to embark on a ceasefire that has saved lives in that part of the world.
	I give that example in this debate because commentators are starting to notice that even though Hamas and al-Qaeda are both terrorist, they cannot be classified in the same way. People are starting to notice that although jihadist groups are calling for violence in response to the cartoons, Hamas has called on its supporters to reject suggestions that their objections to the cartoons, which are equally as strong, should involve a violent response. I am not claiming that Hamas has suddenly stopped being terrorist or has stopped glorifying terrorismit has not; it is still a terrorist organisation. However, if a young Muslim in the UK who hears about a Palestinian child being shot by Israeli troopsas happened a couple of weeks agosays that he supports Hamas and that Palestinians should take up arms against Israel, I question whether the right thing for us to do would be to criminalise him and threaten him with imprisonment, rather than telling him that he is wrong and why.
	From all my involvement in the issue, whether it be talking to people in the middle east or in the UK, I know that to respond by immediate criminalisation of such a young Muslimsending out those signalsis much more likely to win recruits for terrorism than to win people away from it.

Ben Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same point applies to Northern Ireland? It would be far more damaging to demolish the war murals in west Belfast and Londonderryfree Derryand to arrest the people who painted them than to deal with the community and promote reconciliation.

Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which he also made in one of our earlier debates on this subject, perhaps from his own experience. It is a relevant example.
	I want to make an appeal to the House. There will be a Division and I intend to abstain for the reasons that I have set out, but if we are concerned about the signals that we send from this place it is important that the Opposition and my hon. Friends who share my reservations about what the Government are doing, and indeed those who disagree even more strongly, do not over-egg their case and claim that the Bill contains something that is not therein other words, go back to our previous debates and imply an omission of the need for a link between glorification and incitement.
	I ask my right hon. and hon. Friendsespecially Ministerswho support the Government not to project the debate as an argument between people who want to defeat terrorism and people who do not. The argument is about how we do it, and that is the signal that we must send out.

Dominic Grieve: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are willing to do that. I simply make the point that, during the build-up to the debate, it has become harderto discuss these matters rationally, as the No. 10 propaganda machine has cranked up to a very high pitch of activity in trying to blacken the name of anyone who stands in its way. That is not conducive to sensible debate, and I for one am always happy to speak to the Home Secretary on such matters.

Richard Burden: I know what the hon. Gentleman has said. In fact, I had finished my speech.

Stewart Hosie: I am not quite sure how long we have, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will start and stop when you tell me to do so.
	In a previous debate I gave the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety an example that I thought would fall foul of the Billa meeting of Chilean political refugees, deemed to be terrorists by the Pinochet regime, at which someone said, I really value what you did in Chile. I hope that one day you can go home and seize back your country from the dictator. The Minister suggested that would not be caught by the Bill.
	The Minister suggested that six hurdles would have to be overcome before anyone could be caught and convicted under the Bill. I dug out the relevant copy of Hansard 2 November 2005, column 873to find the Minister's response to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in which she laid out the six hurdles to be overcome. If I have time, I shall go through my example again and compare it with her six hurdles and the term glorification.
	Let us consider the first test, where someone attends a meeting and says, I really value what you did in Chile in the fight against Pinochet, even though he has deemed you to be a terrorist now. I hope that one day you'll go back and seize your country from the dictator. That person must know that they are glorifying the actions that were taken and asking that they be emulated in the future, and the recipient of the information must also be in no doubt about that.
	The second test involves the likely effect. Indeed, people may well go back and commit the actions again to achieve the desired result. The third test relates to the context. In the context of a meeting of political refugees, there can be no doubt about the meaning of those words. The fourth test is whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Of course, if there were witnesses to the conversation, there would be a reasonable prospect.
	The fifth test is whether a prosecution is in the public interest. It may not be in the public interest with this Government, but it may certainly have been under previous Governments andwho knows?under future ones. The problem is that that is a very subjective and political decision, which is not helped by the vagueness of the word glorification.
	The sixth test is whether the Director of Public Prosecutions would take action. If a crime had been committed and there were reasonable grounds to believe that a conviction could be achieved, the DPP would have little or no alternative but to proceed; he would be obliged to do so.
	I have struggled with this since 2 November, and I think that that is a very good example of how innocent people who say perfectly reasonable things to progress the cause of people fighting a despot might be charged, convicted and criminalised under the glorification element of the Bill. I do not believe that the six hurdles are safeguards; they are simply a description of the process of conviction. The bottom line is that too many people would be found guilty and convicted of crimes under the glorification provision simply for giving positive support to progress the cause of people fighting despots elsewhere.
	The term glorification is so wide, so broad and lacks so much definition that it ought not to appear in the Bill. Furthermore, no Government Member has yet been able to give a single example of any organisation or individual who would be charged under the glorification cause who would not have been covered by provisions guarding against encouraging, committing, instigating or commissioning directly or indirectly acts of terror, or recruiting to a terrorist organisation, or fund raising for a terrorist organisation, or any of the measures that are already on the statute book. The provision is unnecessary. It is too wide. It is unhelpful. It will criminalise the innocent. Let us reach an agreement, find a formula and accept the Lords amendments, with the necessary changes, but let us not object to them today.

William Cash: In view of the time, I shall speak briefly. The debate has demonstrated with absolute clarity the need to take back these provisions, to consider them in the recess and to propose words that will make sense and can be defined by the courts. This is not just simply a question of whether the public have a view about what is glorification. None of us in a general sense would want terrorism to be glorified, but that is not the problem.
	The problem is that such words have never been construed in any court. They are incapable of being construed properly in any court, and they will lead to grave uncertainty. Indeed, to turn the Prime Minister's argument on its head, far from producing the results that he seems to want to achieve, they will almost certainly lead to the acquittal of the very persons whom he would want to be prosecuted and convicted. That is the ultimate test.
	What the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been saying today will lead to the acquittal of people on grounds under which they would have been prosecuted successfully in relation to the whole series of enactments that have been described already, including the two enactments of 1861, the Terrorism Act 2000 and a stack of others.
	Such provisions are available. Including them in the Bill will create confusion and uncertainty, so they should be included in the consolidation Bill to which the Home Secretary referred the other day. In the meantime, he should go back to the drawing board and come up with proposals that both make sense and will result in what the people of this country really want.

It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 277.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendments Nos. 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 34 agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 279, the Noes were 226, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Terrorism Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3
	  
	Application of Ss. 1 and 2 to Internet Activity etc.

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 5, line 17, leave out
	, in the opinion of the constable giving it,

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, that this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 23, Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 29, and Government motion to disagree thereto.

Hazel Blears: Although I am sure that our debate on these amendments will be somewhat shorter than our debate on the previous group, they are detailed and controversial and I have no doubt that they will be subjected to proper scrutiny this afternoon.
	The amendments relate to clause 3, which extends to the internet the offences set in clauses 1 and 2encouragement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications. I am sure that the House does not disagree with the principle of the clause that knowingly encouraging terrorism through the internet should be a crime. We have all heard about the radical material that is sometimes distributed via the internet and on the worldwide web, and the damage that it can cause. However, in applying the offences in clauses 1 and 2 to the internet, we faced a significant problem relating to knowledge of the offence.
	As we all know, it is possible for someone who runs a bulletin board-style website to be unaware of the content posted on it. Clause 3 provides for a notice and take-down procedure to enable the police to notify those who are unaware of offending material of its presence and to request them to remove it from the public view. If they choose not to remove the material, they will be deemed to have endorsed it and they will lose the chance, if they are prosecuted under clauses 1 or 2, to use the defence of non-endorsement set out in those clauses.
	The House should bear in mind, first, that refusal to obey the notice and take-down procedure is not an offence in itself. The legal effect of refusing to comply with the notice is merely that the statutory defences in clauses 1 and 2 of non-endorsement are not open to be used by the person in question. Secondly, even if an individual fails to comply with the notice, the prosecution will still have to prove that they intended to encourage terrorism or to make information or assistance available to terrorists, or they were subjectively reckless about that. Those are significant burdens on the prosecution. The clause provides simply that someone who chooses to ignore the notice and take- down procedure will not be able to avail themselves of the simple statutory defence of non-endorsement; the prosecution will still have to prove the offence. The intention behind clause 3 was to provide a method by which webmasters could be made aware of content on their websites, thus ensuring that they could not claim not to have known about it if they were subsequently prosecuted.
	The internet is a fast-moving medium. In the field of removal of child pornography, in which the UK is the acknowledged world leader, it is accepted that offensive material can change location several times in one day. Shifts in location can take place between different computer servers, across countries and across continents.

Tobias Ellwood: The problem to which the right hon. Lady refers is an international problem, but we are prompted to act in this respect because we are trying to deal with a problem of international terrorism. What discussions has she had with ICANNthe Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is the international organisation responsible for the servers themselveswhich would be at the heart of any attempt to solve the problem? If we control what goes out on the internet, we stop the means of communication that terrorists use so freely.

Hazel Blears: Personally, I have not had any such discussions, but extensive discussions are under way with internet service providers and the communications industry both in the European Union and internationally to try to ensure that we tackle those problems in relation to terrorism and child pornography. Hon. Members will acknowledge that we have made significant progress in dealing with child pornography in this area. Those discussions are under way, but the hon. Gentleman is rightwe face international problems, and the imperative is to maximise international co-operation on these issues.
	Locating that material and ensuring that it is removed is sometimes a difficult job, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. It was therefore proposed and accepted by the House that a police constable could issue a notice to the person responsible for disseminating or publishing content considered capable of prosecution. The amendments made in the other place drastically change the effect of clause 3, and stipulate on the grounds of protection of freedom of speech that a judicial authority, rather than a police officer, should be capable of issuing such a notice. Moreover, they stipulate that the judicial authority should be a circuit judge, a judge of the High Court in England and Wales or an equivalent judge in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	The argument advanced in the other place for such a change is that it would not be in the interest of a service provider or webmaster to ignore a notice, and that a police constable was not an appropriate authority to issue such a notice, given the effect on freedom of speech. I understand some of the concerns expressed in the other place, but I hope to reassure the House that they are unfounded. First, we are working to produce guidance on the issue of notices under clause 3 with a working group comprising members of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other interested parties. It is certain that a clearly stated protocol will be introduced under which notices will be issued. It is therefore not possible for a notice to be issued without serious consideration. Concern was expressed in the other place that a police officer could decide on a whim that material on the web contravened the provision and could issue a notice. However, I can reassure the House that that will not happen.

Peter Bone: I accept the Minister's reassurance but, under the Bill as drafted, it is possible for any constable to issue a notice, whatever protocol is introduced.

Hazel Blears: It is appropriate for a police officer to take such a step, but I am seeking to assure the House that that police officer will be an accredited specialist with proper training. I hope that, on the basis of my assurances, the House is comforted that we are trying to build in sufficient safeguards so that the powers are not exercised disproportionately.

John Redwood: How many cases will come to the attention of the police and result in such an order in a typical year?

Hazel Blears: I am not in a position to speculate about the effect of the provision because it is a new measure. The police, however, will look at the issue carefully. We all accept that some material circulated internationally on the web could fall foul of clauses 1 and 2, so it is appropriate to introduce a mechanism to request that that information is removed quicklyas I said, the internet is a fast-moving medium.
	May I set out the detail of what the special branch officers will do, as it will give the House some reassurance? An officer in the anti-terrorism branch of the police service who carries out such duties is known as the single point of contact, and deals regularly with internet service providers and the communications industry. Our relationship with the communications industry does not simply focus on terrorism, and there are a range of issues on which the police must foster good relations. The accredited single point of contact officers will ensure efficiency and good practice in their management of relationships. They will use only practical and lawful requirements for the acquisition of communications data, and they will provide a guardian and gatekeeper function to minimise the burdens on internet providers so that a huge amount of bureaucracy is not created. At the same time, however, they will ensure that there is access to the information that could help us to tackle such problems.

Julian Lewis: The policemen who undertake such work will be specialists, if only in linguistics, because much of the material will probably be in a foreign language. However, what would happen if something were posted on the web that genuinely quoted inflammatory material, perhaps to criticise it? On the other hand, to get round the law, a posting could quote inflammatory material and pretend to criticise it but, in fact, be seeking to propagate it.

Hazel Blears: Clearly, those are matters of interpretation of the material posted. Does it fulfil the conditions of the offences in clauses 1 and 2? Does it appear to be material of the kind that could qualify as the offence? The original notice and take-down procedure will be a judgment reached by the specially accredited officers who are properly trained to deal with these matters. It is important to stress that failure to remove the material is not a criminal offence. It simply stops the person availing themselves of the statutory defence that is in place.
	That is probably a good balance, so that we can get swift action. Things on the web move very quickly. If we had to go to judicial authoritya High Court judgesimply for the notification procedure, that would build inordinate delay into the process.

Julian Lewis: rose

Hazel Blears: I shall finish the information, for the benefit of the House, about the single point of contact officers. When people see the broad statement in the Bill about a police constable being able to take the action described, I understand their concerns and I am seeking to allay them.
	The special branch officers who, as I said, are properly accredited, would assess whether it was necessary to get the information from the service providers, and they would try and offer assurance to those providers and work with them. I am assured that the officers have all been on a proper course of training. Details of all the accredited individuals are available to the service providers so that they can be reassured about the person they are dealing with.
	We are considering the appropriate level for the authorisation of the power. In many areas powers are authorised at superintendent level. We have not reached a final decision about that, but if we read across from the regulation of investigatory powers legislation, that is the appropriate level.

Julian Lewis: When service providers are informed about such a notification, will there not be a temptation on their part, assuming that they are just business men and women and non-ideological, to say, Whenever we get a take-down notice, we will automatically comply. What's in it for us to resist it?, and will not the effect of the policy applied across the board be that all the websites will quickly find internet service providers abroad and the whole issue will become rather nugatory?

Hazel Blears: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that because there might be consequences, we should not try to limit the kind of information that is available. If we adopted that as a general approach, we would rarely legislate on anything. If, through the process, we can limit the amount of material that could be used to encourage people to engage in terrorist acts, it is a process worth adopting. I do not believe that the automatic response from providers will be to remove information. They have an interest in making sure that their websites, and access to the web, are relevant and interesting to the people who want to use them.

John Redwood: It would help the House if the Minister could tell us why she wants the measure. How common is the problem on the web? Have there been cases of terrorist outrages or ones that have fortunately been stopped where web material was important as part of the motivational briefing?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that people access material and images from the web. Sometimes people who have been involved in terrorist activity have said that they were influenced by material that they were able to access. The problem is therefore real. It is important that we take every step we can to try and prevent people from being unlawfully drawn into terrorist activity. Clause 1 includes the new offence of indirectly encouraging people to get involved in terrorist activity.
	It is important that we seek to use all available means, because in this global world people are increasingly using technology, the internet and methods of communication other than writing a simple statement or making a speech. We have already debated how people communicate, and most people think it appropriate to limit the use of the web where it draws people into such activity.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Lady has said that a specially trained police officer will consider the quality and quantity of the evidence and whether a prosecution could be mounted, but qualified lawyers, such as judges, should control all those things. If her main objection to the Lords amendment is the delay, I suggest the use of circuit judges as well as of High Court judges. Circuit judges in many fields of law are always available at a moment's notice to attend, for example, interlocutory injunctions. The delay is not necessary, because such matters can be dealt with quickly.

Hazel Blears: My objection to the Lords amendment is not based simply on the issue of delay, and I shall make a further point in due course.
	I hope that I have assured hon. Members that the people in the anti-terrorism branch, which will be the point of contact, will be properly accredited and trained to carry out the work. It is important to point out that the process has been agreed with the internet industry, which did not ask for the Lords amendment in order to protect itself. The internet industry is content with the proposed procedure in the Bill.

Ben Wallace: I understand the Minister's good intentions on dealing with rogue sites within the United Kingdom. Will she clarify what would happen if a nation such as Iran were to host a website calling on all Muslims to destroy the nation of Israel? In that case, an offence would obviously have been committed under clause 17, but would the Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom be guilty of an offence while serving here because the site was hosted by their Government?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman has set out a complex example, and it is difficult to envisage the controls that we could introduce in those circumstances. As I have said, the impossibility of controlling every single eventuality is not a reason for inaction on other mattersI have encountered that issue in a range of areas.
	The police are seeking to take action on internet transactions. It is difficult to implement provisions that affect the whole of Europe, let alone the whole of the world, but we are continuing to work on international agreements to limit illegality on the internet. The issue will become increasingly difficult as more and more information becomes available on the internet, and we are seeking to introduce robust laws to limit the problem. I do not think that we can eradicate radical material from the whole of the internet, but that is no reason not to do the best that we can.

Martin Horwood: The Minister has rightly pointed out the complexity of many of the examples, so I shall give her a simpler one. If a newspaper were to carry a photograph of a direct encouragement to terrorismfor example, some of the recent placardson its website, would that website be indirectly encouraging terrorism? Under the Bill, the encouragement would be indirect, but the judiciary rather than the police should make such fine judgments.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the two-stage nature of clause 3. The police, who will be properly accredited, will say, This is on your website and we would like you to take it down. People can properly refuse to remove such material, but it means that they cannot then take advantage of the defence that they did not know about the material and could not therefore endorse it. It does not mean that someone is guilty of an offence, but simply that they cannot take advantage of a defence that is designed to protect people who genuinely and innocently did not know that the material was on their website. It puts them on notice that the material is on their website and that they had better take it down or they may be prosecuted. However, the prosecution would still then have to prove every element of the offences in clauses 1 and 2. The person will have their legal protection, but they will not be able simply to say that they did not know about it, because they will have been put on very clear notice by the police officer concerned.
	These amendments have not been asked for by the internet industry, which does not feel that it is rulable as a result of these provisions. We have been in discussions with its trade bodythe Internet Service Providers Association. It welcomes the setting out in the provisions of a clear notice-and-take-down model. It had several concerns which we sought to address and which were discussed in the other place. However, at no time did the industry ask for the change that the amendments would makethat is, to bring in judicial oversight.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I appreciate precisely what the Minister is saying. We are dealing not with an offence but a defence, and that defence being abrogated as a result of knowledge of what one is doing. I suspect that it is not that different from a situation in which, were there to be no defence, a member of the special branch or a senior police officer went to the internet provider and said, This is on your site, and if you don't take it off we're going to prosecute you for it. Let me offer the Minister a thought. The police's ability to do this is undoubtedly an in terrorem measure. May I suggest that we build into the Billwe still have time an appeal process whereby, if it wishes, an internet provider that has been warned in this way can go to a judge for that judge to provide, on its appeal, whether proper or improper notice has been served? No delay would be involved. It would be at the internet provider's expense, we would not be in any way penalised by it, and it would assuage many of the problems that many of us have.

Hazel Blears: I understand my hon. and learned Friend's point. I do not know how many people share the same problems, but I think that the internet industry is content with the provisions as we have set them out and feels that they strike the right balance. It is not looking for extra judicial oversight or for an appeal process. We must get the balance right between being able to take swift action on a very fast-moving mediumthe internetand ensuring that people can still avail themselves of the proper defences to any prosecutions that might be brought but cannot avail themselves of the defence that they did not know about the material if they have been put on notice. That is a sensible and straightforward provision.
	As I said, there is also no immediate penalty for failing to comply with a notice. In those terms, there is no need for an appeal process. If we want to prove offences under clause 1, we have to prove intent or subjective recklessness. In addition, there are the provisions on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the hurdle of the public interest. I talked about hurdles at great length when we debated this legislation in the past. I am concerned to ensure that there are safeguards.
	I do not want provisions that lead to arbitrary prosecution, but I think that these provisions are appropriate. The amendments tabled in the other place would make them much less effective. If we are going to say that there needs to be judicial oversight of such material by a High Court judge, as suggested, that would subject the issuing of one notice, which merely notifies and requests the person to take down material, to the same amount of judicial scrutiny as the continuing detention provisions. I genuinely think that in this case we have got the balance right, with a specially trained special branch officer who works with the anti-terrorist unit, and is used to dealing with these issues, going to the service provider and saying, This material is there, you ought to take it down, and if you don't you can't avail yourself of the defence that says you didn't know. It is a very straightforward issue, and with the greatest respect I think that Members are making heavy weather out of it.

Julian Lewis: rose

Hazel Blears: However, I always respect the views of the hon. Gentleman, so I give way.

Julian Lewis: I am being persistent about the matter because I was one of the first people to issue a writ against an internet service provider for defamatory material. That is analogous to the position that we are discussing. The effect was instantaneous: the material was removed and promptly reappeared on the site of a foreign internet service provider. However, the Minister could consider a positive actionperhaps she has already considered itthat is more than the empty gesture that she is making. What is she doing about search engines? The danger of such material is not so much the people who know which websites to look for because they are already hooked, but those who enter terms into a search engine such as Google, which, as we know, is capable of deciding what it will produce if hit. Action on search engines would be of more practical value than what she is proposing today.

Hazel Blears: My decision to give way to the hon. Gentleman is vindicated. As ever, he has knowledge and experience of such matters and makes a practical suggestion. I do not accept that our proposal is a gesture. I believe that it will have an impact on reducing the available material. However, I should like to investigate whether we could consider actionnot necessarily in the Billto cover people who perhaps inadvertently go on to such websites and those who positively search for them. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
	I am sure that hon. Members want to try to ensure that our law is effective. I do not believe that an appeal process is necessary because providers can simply ignore the notice, in which case they cannot avail themselves of the statutory defence. We all accept the power of the internet today and the fact that it is capable of radicalising young men and women and exposing them to material that none of us wants them to see.
	It is important that we disagree with the Lords amendments. They are cumbersome, not at the right level, would lead to delay and make the provisions much less effective.

Tobias Ellwood: Does the Minister concede that, if the internet played any part in the 7/7 bombings or any of the other international terrorist events, the websites and internet service providers are likely to have emanated from abroad? If we are to tackle international terrorism, the provision may be a step in the right direction but it will hit many innocent organisations that will now have to be careful, while not touching internet service providers and websites that deliberately send messages and are used by terrorists as a form of communication.

Hazel Blears: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the provisions will have some effect. I do not pretend that they will eradicate every bit of unacceptable material from the whole internet. It would be difficult to draft such provisions without their leading to complaints that they were too draconian and authoritarian. We are trying to get the balance right. We constantly work with our colleagues in the European Union and other nations throughout the world to try to ensure that we bear down on global information that can drag young people into terrorist activity.
	Other member states are as concerned as us to try to reduce such internet activity in their countries. We have negotiated some good agreements, especially in the EU, about sharing information and trying to harmonise the retention of communications data. That, too, will help in our fight against terrorism. Hon. Members should rest assured that the Government are not idle. We constantly try to ensure that we maximise our ability to intervene.

David Taylor: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's comments about the attitude of internet service providers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Is not it at least possible that internet providers and the Governments of the countries where they are located are not necessarily reluctant for some of the more marginal material to be left on the web because one could thereby track the source and addresses of those who access the sites? Is not that a form of intelligence that could help tackle some of the problems that my right hon. Friend describes?

Hazel Blears: I do not necessarily accept the advice that we should allow material that is clearly dangerous to remain on websites to try to get intelligence.

David Taylor: Marginal material.

Hazel Blears: Those are matters of fine judgment and I do not want to consider the provisions that we discussing in that way. We have some straightforward provisions that would notify providers that material was unacceptable and that they should remove it, tell them that they could choose to ignore the notice but that, if they did so, they could not avail themselves of the statutory defence that they did not know about it. The provisions from the other place would elevate this matter to too great a level by seeking to have judicial scrutiny of the process. The internet service providers have not requested that; they are happy with this process and feel that it will help to reduce the amount of such material available. This is a practical and common-sense provision, and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendments and to approve the original wording of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I have listened with interest to what the Minister has said on this matter. We share her aims in clause 3. We entirely agree that it should be possible to give a notice to take down internet material that offends under clauses 1 and 2. We have no problem with that. The difficulty is, as the Minister will acknowledge, that the internet service provider is in a different position from the person who has put the material on the web in the first place.
	We take the view in this country that the internet is a powerful tool for disseminating information, and that on the wholealthough it can be used for bad purposes such as pornography, child pornography and, indeed, terrorismthe balance is in its favour in that it allows the distribution of information around the world. It is therefore in the public interest that the principle of the freedom of the internet should be maintained. Disquiet has been expressed recently that, under pressure from some foreign Governments, internet service providers and search engines have been prepared to reach accommodations with those Governments to withdraw certain material, particularly in China. That is an infringement of the ability to communicate freely. There is a serious public interest in maintaining the right to communicate freely on the internet.
	I fully understand how the Government's provision will operate. There will be trained officers to carry out research work and serve the notices. That is all perfectly appropriate, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) so rightly said, when a person receives one of those notices, it is in terrorem. They will receive a notice telling them that they risk prosecution unless they remove the material, and that they will not be able to rely on the statutory defence of lack of knowledge. Any internet service provider that is doing its job properly and is respectful of the public policy arguments relating to the maintenance of freedom of speech will have to make a judgment as to whether the police officer is right to serve the notice. There could be instances in which an internet service provider decided that the case was borderline. It would not be the first time in our history that a police officer had made a mistake, however well-intentioned they might be.
	In those circumstances, what could be more sensible than to provide a mechanism to reassure the internet service provider that an independent third party had scrutinised the request from the police officer, so as to establish that there was at least a prima facie case to justify the officer's action? That is all that we were talking about, when the other place inserted the judicial scrutiny provision.
	I was surprised to hear the Minister say that this would be no different from the scrutiny of control orders. She has failed to understand the nature of the review that a judge would carry out. I would assume that it would be identical to those made on an ex parte application for an injunction. The police officer would simply have to show the material to the judge, and the judge would have to make a swift assessment of whether he thought that it fell foul of clauses 1 and 2. The judge would then give his approval. That would provide the reassurance to the internet service provider that he was taking the right decision in taking the material off the web.
	The Minister seemed to say that there was a great need for haste in such cases. I confess that I was a little surprised about that, because when we debated clause 3 it never occurred to me that it, or clauses 1 and 2, would be used as an emergency provision suddenly to remove or prosecute people. Instead, it seemed that it was part of the Government's perfectly commendable plan to ensure that the circulation of material that constituted a direct or indirect encouragement to terrorism could be controlled. The truth, I suspect, is that material of that kind is likely to have been on the web for weeks if not months or years before somebody finally starts taking action against it. That there will be some threat to the public from a delay of 24 hours, which is probably all that would be needed in order to go before a judgein an emergency, the delay would probably be of a few hours, and the hearing could probably be done in the middle of the night were there some pressing reasondoes not therefore seem to be the best point that the Minister has made in the debate, although I acknowledge that I do not take exception to the broad thrust of what the Government are trying to do.
	I regret that the Minister has not persuaded me that the amendment was a foolish move by those in the other place to try to improve the Bill. I am a little disappointed not to have seen her telling us cheerfully from the Dispatch Box that it was rather a good idea and a minor improvement to the Bill that should commend itself to the House.
	The hon. and learned Member for Medway made the point that the other approach would be to have an appeal procedure. That is another way of doing it. It would provide for some degree of judicial review of the decision taken. Where people are making a decision that interferes with the normal right to exchange information, it seems to me that the cost, which would not be much anyway, could properly fall on the state, at least in providing for this scrutiny measure. To be fair to the Minister, she has not suggested that the scrutiny measure will undermine the provisions of clause 3, as that would be rather far-fetched.
	The measure is not of huge importance, but having read it and considered what the other place has done, it seems to be a material improvement to the Bill. When first confronted with the amendment, which did not come from my party, my colleagues in the other place took the view that it helped matters. I am therefore sorry to learn that the Minister is unsympathetic to the amendment. If, as I assume will be the case, the matter is pressed to a vote, Conservative Members will vote for the amendment to be retained, because although it is not of huge importance, it is a minor and sensible improvement to the legislation.

Lynne Featherstone: We agree in principle with wanting to take off the net material that would incite or encourage terrorism, on which there is agreement on both sides of the House. However, we want to preserve the protections put in place by my noble Friends in relation to free speech and freedom of information and a certain degree of protection for the police.
	The internet is the most extraordinary communication tool. It brings light to some of the darkest places in this world because it circumvents the censorious nature of authoritarian Governments or dictatorships. We laud its freedoms when it suits us, because it brings news and the outside world into those countries where Governments would keep freedom at bay. We object when we see Governments interfere with those freedoms, as we did recently in the early-day motion on China and Google, which I signed.
	The Government wish to disagree with my noble Friends' amendment. We believe, however, that free speech is threatened by intervention in what can and cannot be published on the internet. We therefore agree that the safeguards in relation to any removal of material should be strengthened. If the amendment is allowed to stand, the decision to serve a notice will be removed from the constable and will become a matter for judicial oversight. We want to ensure that the mischief that the Government rightly seek to address is confined to that particular mischief.

Philip Hollobone: May I give a rather flippant example? We all know of the case of Mr. Walter Wolfgang, who was removed from the Labour party conference under anti-terrorism legislation on the determination of a police officer. Were Mr. Wolfgang to have a website, the Bill would allow a police officer to insist on its removal. We all know that that is a flippant example and that it is unlikely to happen, but under the Bill it is possible.

Lynne Featherstone: That is true. A host of cases might be caught, or might not. The point of judicial oversight is to confer an extra level of security to any decision that is made.
	If a notice is served, an internet service provider will inevitably remove material that is cited as being unlawfully terrorism-related, because it will not be in the provider's interest to risk the cost, the fight and the possible prosecution for the sake of something about which, ultimately, he may not care very deeply. He might not be caught for non-compliance with the notice, but he would be caught under the provision relating to an endorsement being seen to have been given if the material were not removed within two days, and would be exposed to prosecution. Obviously, service providers would fight shy of that. No wonder they are not complaining to the Minister; I do not think they can. Accepting the notice and removing the material is the line of least resistance.
	The judgment on material thought to be unlawfully terrorism-related becomes crucial. The Bill refers to the opinion of a constable. I am impressed by the sudden escalation of the qualifications of that constable to the level of special branch, with authority to give particular guidance; but the Bill uses the word constable nevertheless. While I have the greatest respect and admiration for our police officers, the usual remit of the police is to submit those suspected of law-breaking to the judiciary for their decision. Under the Bill, a constable will be the arbiter.
	There is a history surrounding the opinions of police officers, particularly in respect of issues of this kind. We know that stops under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 resulted in a 300 per cent. increase in the number of stops after ll September. We know of the disproportionality relating to stop and search and stop and account. To my personal knowledge the Met has worked hard to eradicate such tendencies from its police officers, but that disproportionality persists. But even when a constable's discretionwhich is vital to police workis used, it is used to bring a suspect to justice. The constable is not supposed to act as judge and jury.
	Moreover, the likely consequences of making the constable, through his opinion, the final arbiter over what is unlawfully terrorism-related may expose the police to public criticism or ridicule should the opinion be obviously and substantively wrong, and subject them to unwanted publicity. The same would apply if a provider took his case to court and wonalthough, as I have said, I doubt that that will happen. The police would become vulnerable if required to make a judgment that a police person is not trained to make, and which it is not appropriate for him or her to make. The police have enough to contend with. Their role should be to bring offenders to justiceto submit to a judge those who, in their opinion, deserve a notice to remove material from the web. Judicial oversight would afford some protection to free speech, and to police officers who would otherwise be charged by the Government's edict with an inappropriate power to decide. Accepting the Lords amendment would have merely a time consequence, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said. We are talking about a delay of a few hours, not about going to court. The measure is akin to an arrest warrant rather than a court hearing, so the Minister's argument is somewhat specious.
	Judicial oversight would lend weight and seriousness to a decision to issue a notice to remove such material, which can only be a good thing; such extra protection has to be a worthy thing. The added benefit is that in referring cases to judges, constables would have more time to weigh the decision being taken; as a result, they would not refer cases so lightly. Constables themselves would consider whether a particular case was worthy of judicial oversight, which provides an extra protection.
	We all understand what the Government are trying to do, but we must ensure that we do not in any way become like those authorities and Governments around the world whom we judge so harshly for their censorship and lack of freedoms. The safeguards that we propose are relatively minor, but they are necessary.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and all those who are concerned about this provision. Like the Minister and all sensible people in this House, I wish to see every decent action taken against terrorism to make it less likely, and to curb those who want to participate in it. However, I am very nervous about the Government's proposal, which will leave our police in great difficulties. The use to which such material is put is in the eye of the reader and the mind of the beholder.
	I trust that all Members believe in the rule of law, peaceful and legal protest and democratic action, not in violent or terrorist action. It is quite possible for us to read histories of recent or past events, of freedom movements and people who have gone beyond the rule of law in what they thought was a just cause, without them inciting us to do the same. To us, even if the cause was right, the means were wrong, and we read such histories with condemnation in our hearts and minds. It would be quite possible, however, for others to read such histories without that strong framework. One could argue that such histories incited them to do likewise in that cause, or in a cause that they regarded as similar. At what point does legitimate history, comment and reporting end, and incitement and the writing of dangerous material begin?
	I would have been much happier to support the Minister this afternoon, had she been able to say how serious a problem this is, what kind of material she doesand does nothave in mind, and how many such instances we might be talking about. If she is saying that she knows of websites that contain outrageous material that is having an impact on a limited number of people, who are then using them to develop a terrorist mentality and to share intelligence with one another, that is one thing, and an argument that I can understand. If, however, she is saying that all manner of websites could be out there that could cause this problem, that is very different. My worry is that the latter is the case, and that the Government are taking a scattergun, very general approach that will place newspapers, opinion-formers, commentators and others in a very difficult position. They will not be sure whether their material could be struck down, or what processes they could use to defend themselves.
	The suggestion is very good and because we wish to prevent terrorism by all sensible means, we will not try to prevent the Minister from extending the powers of the state in this way in order to have some control over internet material. However, in order to reassure all those involved in legitimate reportage, history writing or internet communication that they are not being targeted, a senior judicial figure should be involved in such cases. That would also provide an added protection for our constables. The Minister said that we are talking about a very limited number of specially trained peoplepeople who need remarkable language skills and judgment in trying to distinguish between the different types of material that I have sketched out todaybut in fact, the Bill states that any constable could deal with such matters. That places too big a burden on constables, and might lead to pressure being put on them by people who see websites that they do not like, and who think that this could be a route to getting them closed down. I therefore urge the Minister to think again.

Ben Wallace: I shall be brief, but the Minister has just announced the effective expansion of some special branch duties as a way to alleviate Opposition concerns about take-down orders being put in place by a constable. In my time, I have served alongside special branch officersin the special operations unit SO12 in Northern Irelandand I know that they are among the best officers in the police force and that they do an extremely good job. However, I also know the practicalities of Government directions such as the Minister's, and I question whether the person placing take-down orders will in fact be the sort of officer about whom she gave the House assurances.
	Special branch officers are incredibly overworked and bear a heavy burden. Among their many other jobs they run agents, liaise with intelligence services and implement new legislation. The Bill talks about a constable, meaning a member of the mainstream special branch, but my experience is that that person will soon be merely a liaison officer attached to special branch, and then an ordinary constable who is asked to assist in a case. Inappropriate allocation of police officers to such tasks can lead to the sort of extreme events that we saw with the Manchester ricin plot. In that case, the wrong type of officer was deployed in the wrong job, and lives were placed in extreme danger.
	I hope that the Minister will alleviate some of our concerns, perhaps in writing if she is unable to provide the answers to my questions this afternoon. What will be the cost of the extra training for some officers? Why do the Government believe that the Bill should speak so loosely of a constable, without offering a closer definition of the expertise required? Why is the Minister not happy with GCHQ, the agency that does the job at the moment? It has linguists, and its intercept knowledge goes far deeper than that of the police force. Does not GCHQ represent the best way to go about these matters, in conjunction with a judicial appeal?

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend's suggestion has the additional practical advantage that it meets the point made by the Labour Back Bencher who spoke about those occasions when the intelligence services will want to track who is accessing sites. As part of the intelligence network, GCHQ will be able to make a balanced decision about when to take a site down and when it might be advantageous to keep it up for intelligence purposes.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I agree with him. I suspect that Cheltenham will continue to do the job anyway, and that a constable in some police force will get a phone call telling him to go down the road to enact a take-down order. That will not make for good policing, but it will cause police resources to be used up. For example, a terrorist group may want to take an officer off duties involving surveillance or running an agent. All it need do is to put up an inflammatory website, and that officer's time will be taken up with the ensuing take-down order rather than with trying to intercept information or interdict the terrorist organisation.
	I hope that when the Minister sums up she will describe the expansion of the special branch role, and give details of the cost implications for the police force of placing on a constable the requirements set out in the Bill. Also, I hope that she will introduce more robust safeguards to ensure that the constable referred to by the Bill does not become merely any probationer or officer who happens to be on hand when a take-down order is required.

Elfyn Llwyd: In all honesty, I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept Lords amendment No. 29. In her opening remarks she said that it seemed rather excessive, in this connection, to use the good offices of a High Court judge, but that is not what the Lords amendment proposes. In the context of England and Wales, it says that an appropriate judge means
	a circuit judge or a judge of the High Court,
	while in Scotland, it would be
	a sheriff or a judge of the High Court of Judiciary.
	Although I am sure that it was inadvertent, it was wrong for her to mislead the House in that way.
	However, even if we need to give special training to a circuit judge or two, or possibly to a High Court judge, that is all that would be necessary, as we all suspect that these orders will be few and far between in any event.
	I speak as a person who is fully supportive of the constabulary. My brother is a Surrey police officer and my late father was also a police officer. I have nothing against the police, but we are now asking police officers to be judge and jury in their own courts. They are highly trained to collect and collate evidence, and then to report to the prosecuting authority, which is, in nine cases out of 10, the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not in their remit to judge that evidencealthough it was in days gone by, before the Crown Prosecution Service was introduced. If the Minister is suggesting that a police constable, however well trained, should be able to evaluate whether an offence has been committedor would be committed if a site remained upshe is asking the impossible of a person who has not been judicially trained. I do not mean that in a snobby way; we all play our various roles in society and a police officer does not play that quasi-judicial role. I am sure that the safeguards in the amendments are reasonable and worthy of proper consideration.
	The Minister said that her main objection to the amendments was not related to the possibility of delay, but her speech was constructed around delay and I did not hear any other real reasons why the judiciary should not be involved. In any case, there would be no delay if one had at hand expert judges, available 24 hours a day, as is the case for domestic violence cases in the middle of the night or any other form of criminal or civil jurisdiction. I am sure, given the importance of this issue, somebody would be available to deal with cases without delay. I cannot understand why this extra safeguard is not being considered.
	The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr.   Marshall-Andrews) suggested a brief appellate procedure, in which the constable would decide, but the decision would be passed to a judge to evaluate whether it should stand. It is all very well for the Minister to say that if someone is warned about taking a notice down, they may ignore the notice. It is not that simple, because they then lose the right to that defence. If they refuse to take down a notice, having been told to do so by a constable, the statutory defence relating to knowledge would not be available to them. That is an important step, because it would mean that if any prosecution were brought, they would be bang to rights, on a decision initially made by a police constable. That is not very well thought out. The other place has provided a safeguard and I urge the Minister, who is a reasonable person, to reconsider the Lords amendments on that issue.

Tobias Ellwood: The purpose of any terrorist attack is to seek attention and create a sense of anxiety and panic among the public, and to provoke an over-reaction by the authorities. My concern about much of this Bill is that it is an over-reaction by the authorities, and that allows the terrorists to win a long time after the actual terrorist attack has come and gone.
	I am pleased that we are starting to focus attention on the use of the internet. I am sure that the House will agree that the internet has played a pivotal role in the communication and planning of all the international terrorist attacks that have taken place. However, the examples mentioned in this debate show how much could have been achieved if we had focused more on the internet. In fact, what has been left out is of more concern.
	We have talked about the role of the police and about the fact that we should start to police the internet in the UK, but we have not really discussed what happens to material in another language or the consequences when organisations using the internet as a means of communication shift their activities abroad. As I said earlier, a united effort is required and it would be nice to see examples of what is happening on the international platform to combat the use of the internet in terrorist incidents.
	Earlier, I mentioned ICANN, which is based in California and is the core for all internet service providers. It has the technical power, although not yet the ability, to put limits on internet service providers throughout the entire world. It does not yet happen, because the internet has advanced at such a pace that nobody has been able to take that step. Examples cited earlier about what is happening in China illustrate that such limitation can be successfully undertaken.
	Although the Government initiatives in the UK are welcome, my challenge to them is that if we are to combat international terrorism, we must give robust consideration to the operation of ICANN. We must look at how it functions and determine whether it can better assist us to control a fundamental form of communication used daily between terrorist organisations and to recruit new members to them.

Hazel Blears: We have heard some useful contributions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Lady that she needs the leave of the House.

Hazel Blears: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the useful points that have been made.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) made various points about international service providers. I have already indicated that regulating the international aspects of internet provision is not the easiest thing to do and that our measures broadly apply to UK service providers. We would not issue notices directly on international service providers, but would try to use our relationships with other Governments and our international partners in law enforcement to take action.
	If a foreign Government implacably refused to take action, we might try to serve a notice on an international service provider, but that would not be our normal route, as enforcement would be difficult. Although it is theoretically possible, a prosecution would be unlikely to follow. The notice and take-down procedure is a precursor to prosecution, not an act in itself; the process prevents the provider from relying on the statutory defence that they did not know the content of their site. It is a preliminary step to subsequent prosecution, so if prosecution would be unlikely, due to international jurisdiction, it would be difficult to issue the initial notice.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some important points about how we can develop our policies and procedures to maximise international co-operation on such issues. As I said earlier, we have a good record on such co-operation, especially in dealing with child pornography, where we are among the leaders in Europe and people are studying our organisation. We have invested a huge amount. We have specialist police officers and a specialist centre to deal with such issues, so we have good experience in tackling damaging information and images on the internet, but we can always learn from other people and we would be interested in doing so.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) obviously has experience in that field and asked whether it would be appropriate for GCHQ rather than police officers to issue the notices. The service of the notice is very much an operational task and is not the type of thing that would normally be undertaken by GCHQ, but that is not to say that on many occasions the officers involved would not be advised by GCHQ about the appropriate steps to take.
	It is important that all our law-enforcement institutions involved in tackling terrorismwhether special branch, GCHQ or the Security Servicework together. Our machinery must be focused on trying to use every tool that we can to bear down on terrorism. Hon. Members have acknowledged that the tools of the internet and international communications are increasingly used by terrorists and those who want to encourage people to get involved in terrorism. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point: if we need GCHQ's advice, operational police officers should be so advised.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has expressed his belief that judicial scrutiny is the appropriate mechanism to reassure people in these circumstances. Although I have made the valid argument about the risk of delay, I have also said that we need to find the right balance of judicial scrutiny; otherwise, every step that we take in trying to tackle terrorism could be subject to lengthy and serious judicial scrutiny. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his legal background, agrees that, as with everything we do in this respect, we must ensure that the judicial scrutiny is proportionate. This is a precursor process, not an offence. By saying that people cannot rely on the statutory defence if such things are not taken down from the internet, we do not require the same level of judicial scrutiny as that required if such an action constituted an offence in and of itself.
	I ask the hon. Gentleman to think seriously about this matter. A company hosting such a site will not find that it is found guilty. We are saying, We have notified you. Therefore, you cannot take advantage of the defence that says, 'I did not know.' That seems to be a straightforward corollary: the company has been notified, so it cannot say that it did not know. That does not mean that it is guilty of the offence. If a prosecution were to ensue, every element that relates to indirect encouragement in circumstances likely to encourage people to emulate the act, and taking account of the phrases in existing circumstances and in the context, would need to be proven.
	Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's principle about judicial scrutiny, the prospect of going to a judge in the middle of the night simply to obtain a notice that only prevents the company from taking advantage of the defence that it did not know is perhaps a little beyond the balance of judicial scrutiny appropriate in these circumstances. I ask him to think about that very carefully indeedI know that he does consider such matters properly and in detail.
	I reiterate that the companies have not asked for judicial scrutiny, and they are content with the form of words that the Government have proposed and the procedure under which the police officers give the notice in the first place. The companies also want the process to be speedy, thus ensuring that it is as effective as possible. Our relationships and co-operation with internet service providers are extremely good. The companies are highly responsible, and they want to be involved in the fight against terrorism. They want to help us wherever they can. I would not be standing at the Dispatch Box making proposals that try to avoid being in direct contravention of the companies' interests if that were not the case.

David Winnick: This may not be a very helpful intervention, I am afraid. I believe that the Opposition much exaggerated the criticism about the glorification provision. I did not accept that criticism and voted with the Government, and I intend to do so again this time. May I tell my right hon. Friend, however, that one of dangers of coming into the Chamber is that we can be persuaded by the argument? It seems to me that the opinion of the constable is not really sufficienthence the reason why I said that this would not be a very helpful intervention. Despite my right hon. Friend's comments, some judicial oversight would be welcome. I shall not break with the Government on this issue, but I wish that they would consider it further.

Hazel Blears: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on the other issues. I am not at all critical of the fact that he has just arrived in the Chamber

David Winnick: I was here earlier.

Hazel Blears: Indeed, I appreciate that, but if my hon. Friend had perhaps heard a little more of the debate, he would know that I am genuinely seeking to get the balance right between ensuring that we have an effective procedure that can tackle the kind of terrorist material that we see on the internet and trying to ensure that the service providers are not disadvantaged.
	That is why I went into some detail about the level of qualifications that the officers who are engaged in this work will have. They will be accredited officers, properly trained and act as the single point of contact that currently exists in the anti-terrorism branch. They will not be simply any police constable. We are now working with the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and internet service providers on a proper protocol to ensure that the police officers who make such decisions are skilled, experienced and properly trained so that they have the specialist knowledge. I hope that this reassures my hon. Friend that the need to go to a judge in the middle of the night with such a notice is not the right level of judicial scrutiny in this process.
	I hope that I have been able to reassure hon. Members, but I am sure that I have not managed to persuade the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I genuinely believe that the Government's proposals will make the law effective and will ensure that we tackle the real problem of the use of the internet to draw young people particularly into terrorist activity. That is a widespread and growing problem, and I am absolutely determined that we will use every method at our disposal, through technology, legislation and our law enforcement forces, to make sure that we bear down on terrorism in this country and that we tackle the people who seek to use international means and technology to draw people into terrorism and to create a climate that can increase the possibility of terrorist acts occurring in this country. Tackling such uses of the internet will be an extremely useful part of the range of the efforts that we take to reduce terrorism in this country.
	As I have said, I accept entirely that the provision may not eradicate the problem across the world, but that is no reason whatever for us not to do everything that we can in this country to make sure that we reduce the amount of information on terrorism and that we tackle the real danger of the use of the internet in promoting it. I therefore disagree with the amendments from the other place and

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 255.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendment Nos. 23 and 29 disagreed to.

Clause 3
	  
	Application of Ss. 1 And 2 to Internet Activity etc.

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 6, line 17, leave out capable of being and insert likely to be
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 255.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 26 and 27 disagreed to.
	Amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 29: Vera Baird, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Dominic Grieve and Joan Ryan; Mr. Secretary Clarke to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Joan Ryan.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

[Relevant document: The Twelfth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 200506, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2006, HC 915.]

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
	The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was introduced last year in recognition of our need to be able to tackle the threat posed to national security by individuals whom we could neither prosecute nor deport. The Government's response to the Law Lords' ruling on powers under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which introduced control orders enabling tailored obligations to be placed on an individual to protect the public from the risk of terrorism. The Act came into forceafter, we recall, some fairly intense parliamentary scrutiny and debateon 11 March 2005.
	The threat posed to the life of the nation by terrorism and the consequences of terrorism is a subject that has necessarily occupied this House on too many occasions. The tragic events of last July brought home to everyone the fact that this is a very real and continuing threat.

Kenneth Clarke: I apologise for interrupting the Minister so soon. Does she agree, given the debates on control orders last year, that the Government would not have got the 2005 Act on the statute book, were in danger of losing a Bill and saved it only by promising fresh legislation in spring 2006, when both Houses of Parliament could reconsider, from the base up, the principle of the Home Secretary having powers to deprive someone of or limit their liberty? Is not it a disgrace that that promise is reduced to one-and-a-half hours' debate about an order on the eve of a recess, thus enabling the Government to retain powers that the vast majority of Members of Parliament in both Houses did not believe they should hold when they first sought them?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the undertakings that were given when the legislation was being considered. However, he, like all of us, knows that significant changes and events have occurred since that debate, not least the events of 7 July, which interposed between our discussion of the original Bill and now. He also knows that we had a timetable for the Terrorism Bill, which we debated earlier, that it was accelerated through all-party agreement because of the events, and that it has been tackled more quickly than was originally envisaged.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that we wanted to reconsider control orders when we had had the opportunity to examine Lord Carlile's report. He acknowledges that we have not yet had a full cycle of control orders because many of them are subject to the appeal provisions and various aspects of judicial scrutiny.
	There has been cross-party agreement and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement indicating that we would introduce draft legislation, which would be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, to try to bring together much of our law on terrorism. That will provide an opportunity to reconsider the issues. That position is accepted by hon. Members of all parties.
	The original undertakings have been affected by subsequent events. There will be an opportunity to reconsider control orders, but it is better to do that when they have been through their full cycle. Our deliberations will be better informed by some of the legal judgments on some of the appeals and applications.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that the reason for the long timetable for any consolidating Bill stems from the need for a definition of terrorism, on which my noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew is working? Does she also accept that that work would not apply to control orders and that we should deal with them in primary legislation earlier rather than later?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we have asked Lord Carlile, as the independent reviewer, to review the definition of terrorism. As he knows, there are some difficulties with that. The United Nations is considering a definition of terrorism, and it is not an easy matter to resolve. However, we should consider control orders in the overarching context of our counter-terrorism legislation. They are one of the tools that we can use, together with our law enforcement agencies and the legislation that we have passed this afternoon, to counter terrorism in this country.
	There is broad agreement that we should have pre-legislative scrutiny and take a good, long, cool, hard look at our counter-terrorism legislation to ensure that it is appropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the sense of going through a full cycle of control orders before considering whether to make changes and amendments.
	The UK Government must continue to tackle terrorism. As I said, control orders have a vital role to play alongside other existing powers and the new measures in the Terrorism Bill, which we debated earlier. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out in his statement to the House on 2 February why he believed the powers were necessary and why we were seeking to renew them for a further 12 months. Lord Carlile's report on the operation of the 2005 Act was laid on the same day.
	Today's renewal debate takes place in accordance with section 13 of the 2005 Act. Section 13 provides that the powers on control orders will automatically lapse after one year unless they are renewed by order subject to the affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. I have dealt with the opportunity for legislative change and the time scale for that.
	Prosecution is and will always remain the Government's preferred course of action in dealing with individuals suspected of terrorism and priority will continue to be given to prosecution. However, it is not always possible, for a variety of reasons. There might be insufficient admissible evidenceclearly there is a reliance on intelligence in some casesan overriding need to protect sensitive sources and/or techniques, and other reasons why a prosecution is not in the public interest.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister share my concern about Lord Carlile's observation on prosecutions? He said:
	I have seen letters from chief officers of police in relation to each controlee certifying that there was no realistic prospect of prosecution. Little is given by way of reasons.
	Does the Minister accept that that is unsatisfactory? What steps will the Home Office take to rectify the situation?

Hazel Blears: Lord Carlile makes a number of recommendations on how the position might be improved. He also makes recommendations on keeping the prohibitions under regular review. We agree with him in regard to both those recommendations. The principle behind his recommendation on providing more information is absolutely sound. We should have as much information as possible about why a prosecution is not possible, but in some cases the information is based on intelligence and we have to take into account the operational implications when determining how much information can be put forward, particularly if it is to be disclosable in proceedings. Lord Carlile also makes reference to that. So, although it is a sound recommendation in principle, we want to take a little more time to consider the operational implications for the cases involved.
	Deportation is also an option for foreign nationals, as removal can provide an alternative means of disrupting their activity and reducing the threat to national security. Again, however, this is not always possible, although we have made considerable progress in agreeing memorandums of understanding with a number of countries, which will provide a means by which individuals can safely be returned to their countries of origin.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister tell the House with how many countries such agreements have been reached? How many individuals are involved?

Hazel Blears: We have signed memorandums of understanding with three countries. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact number of individuals involved. I am sure that he will understand that these are complex, difficult and sensitive arrangements, but we are determined to continue our negotiations with a range of other countries, to determine whether we can agree memorandums of understanding with them. I was pleased that Lord Carlile's report stated that the memorandums of understanding were appropriate in the context of deportation. When commenting on arguments that it was inappropriate to proceed in this way, he stated:
	It really is a counsel of despair to suggest that no verifiable or satisfactory agreement can ever be reached with apparently recalcitrant countries. There are international organisations and mechanisms available and devisable to ensure an appropriate level of verification, and the effort is certainly well worth making.
	I am pleased that Lord Carlile believes that our attempts in this difficult area are worth pursuing.
	The Terrorism Bill that is now before Parliament will introduce some new offences, including the offence of acts preparatory to terrorism, but there will remain a comparatively small number of cases in which we are unable to prosecute but in which individuals pose a very real terrorist threat. In such circumstances, it is vital that the Government and the law enforcement agencies are able to act to reduce the risk that such individuals pose. Again, Lord Carlile has provided support for this view. His report states, in paragraph 61:
	As a last resort (only), in my view the control order system as operated currently in its non-derogating form is a justifiable and proportional safety valve for the proper protection of civil society.
	Lord Carlile has clearly thought deeply about these issues, and come to that conclusion. I would like to thank him for the way in which he has conducted his analysis of the information he has seen. As he said in the introduction to the report, he has attempted to give a proper technical analysis of the operation of the Act, but he has tried to do it in a way that is accessible to the lay reader. Technical reports often do not have those characteristics, but Lord Carlile's report genuinely strikes the right balance between good operational information and accessibility. I would also like to thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has produced a very informative report and a detailed reflection of the legislation and its operation. Both reports will be invaluable in informing the House in our consideration of these important issues.
	I shall turn now to the working of control order powers. Sections 1 to 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provide for the making of control orders. Control orders are preventive orders that enable one or more obligations to be placed on individuals that are designed to prevent, restrict or disrupt their involvement in terrorism-related activity. They can be applied to any individual, whether a UK or foreign national, when the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is or has been involved in terrorist activity and considers that it is necessary for the purposes of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism. The grounds that must be set out before an order can be made therefore have two limbsthat an individual is involved in terrorism and that it is necessary to make an order to protect the public. The obligations that can be set out in the order should be tailored to tackle particular terrorism activities on a case-by-case basis. Any breach of those obligations in a control order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable with a prison sentence of up to five years and/or an unlimited fine.
	The Act makes provision for two types of order: derogating control orders and non-derogating control orders. The distinction between the two is that a derogation would be required if the obligations, individually or in total, amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. We have not sought to make any derogating control orders. At this stage, we have simply made non-derogating control orders. The Secretary of State must apply to the court for permission to make an order. Under the Act, in a case of urgency, the Secretary of State himself can make the order, but that must be referred immediately to the court, which must start considering that case within seven days. The judicial scrutiny is therefore pretty intense, arising from many of our discussions when the provisions were first considered.
	Once the control order is made, an automatic review process is triggered. That judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision provides independent judicial scrutiny. When we considered this legislation previously, the question whether judicial review provided robust examination was debated. Lord Carlile, in paragraph 67 of his report, says that, in his view, judicial review is a robust jurisdiction, and points out that the way in which judicial review has developed means that the courts take a close and rigorous interest in such issues.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister is giving an extraordinary description of what she makes sound like a robust judicial process, which was at the heart of the reluctance of both Houses of Parliament to let the Government have the Bill 12 months ago. Will she confirm that, throughout the process, the Secretary of State has to have only reasonable suspicion that he has got the right person and that that person is involved in terrorism, and that a court can set aside what the Secretary of State does only if the judge is satisfied that the Secretary of State's decision is seriously flawed? Therefore, as long as the Secretary of State can say that he has reasonable suspicions and grounds to suspect that someone is involved in terrorism, there is little that the court can do.

Hazel Blears: I am aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has extensive legal experience, and he will know, as I do, that the courts take their responsibilities on judicial review extremely seriously. We had a long debate on what the appropriate standard of proof should be. For non-derogating orders, we decided that it should be reasonable suspicion. Were there to be derogating orders, we decided that it should be on a balance of probabilities, because the standard of proof should be higher. That was debated at great length in both Houses of Parliament, and the legislation was passed on the basis of that standard of proof. As he will know, the courts will need to consider whether the Secretary of State acted reasonably in coming to his conclusion, whether he took into account all relevant considerations, and whether he excluded all irrelevant considerations. He will also know that judicial review is no rubber-stamp process and entails rigorous consideration by the courts. Indeed, Lord Carlile expresses that view from an independent standpoint.
	Once a control order is made, the automatic review process is triggered. Control orders have a maximum duration of 12 months, and can then be renewed by the Secretary of State. After 12 months, however, a separate right of appeal is provided, which is another safeguard. An individual can also make an appeal for an order to be revoked or an obligation to be modified when there is a change in circumstance. Again, a separate right of appeal is provided when the obligations are variedanother safeguard built into the system. I therefore feel that the Act provides full judicial oversight and proper rights of appeal.
	In addition to those individual rights, there are reviewing and reporting requirements, including an independent review by Lord Carlile and the report that the Secretary of State must bring to Parliament every three monthswhich he has done on three occasions so far, I thinkon his exercise of the powers, giving information such as how many orders have been made. The system contains robust safeguards, subject to reporting requirements and independent oversight. A delicate balance must be struck between safeguarding society and safeguarding the rights of the individual, and I think that the 2005 Act strikes that balance.

David Taylor: The Minister will know that the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights focuses on the human rights of the families of individuals affected by control orders. It speaks of the unjustifiable interference that often takes place, the severe impact that it has on the human rights of those family membersrights to family life, freedom of association and freedom of expressionand the mental suffering and anguish to which they are often subject. What rights will those family members have in respect of the establishment of a more satisfactory regime?

Hazel Blears: The Secretary of State considers the impact on family rights before making a control order. He has information about those important issues. Representatives of families have raised them with the courts, and they can be considered by the courts when each case is automatically reviewed.
	Family rights are important, but they are part of that delicate balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and safeguarding the rights and security of the wider community. I understand the implications for families, but we are dealing with people who are deemed to be a threat to national security, who cannot be prosecuted or deported but whose activities need to be controlled to protect the security of the nation.
	The renewal debates here and in the other place are a further requirement of the Act. Affirmative resolution is required in both Houses of Parliament. The debates give all Members an opportunity to consider Lord Carlile's report and the merits of control orders more generally.
	Lord Carlile made recommendations for improvement in the operation of the control order regime, including a procedure to monitor closely the necessity and proportionality of control order obligations and fuller information from the Government on why a prosecution cannot replace a control order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has welcomed the recommendations. He has said that he will need to consider them after consulting the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service, as required by the Act.
	The first of the two main recommendations concerns the procedure for monitoring and reviewing the obligations. We accept that there is scope for additional review of the obligations throughout a control order's life cycle, and we are discussing with our stakeholders how best to achieve that. We think that the second recommendation is sound in principle, but we shall want to examine the operational implications.
	Without the order, the power to make control orders will lapse at midnight on 10 March 2006. Under the order, it will continue until 10 March 2007. As I have said, it requires approval by both Houses. The Government strongly believe that control orders are an essential element of the range of measures that are necessary to address the continuing threat posed by terrorism, and that belief is supported by Lord Carlile.
	Let me quote from a paragraph that, for me, sums up the way in which the report highlights the issues while also being accessible. Lord Carlile says that
	the nature of the activities of which I have seen information
	and we should not forget that Lord Carlile sees all the information
	is sufficiently alarming for me to re-emphasise, as I have in other reports, the real and present danger of shocking terrorism acts involving suicide bombings . . . further suicide bombings in the UK must be expected and the target unpredictable.
	Those are indeed chilling words, and it is crucial that we never underestimate the threat that we now face. Control orders are one of a number of options that the Government are employing to counter the very real threat of terrorism. They have an essential role to play, not just in countering the threat but in contributing to a more hostile environment for terrorists. Any Government's first consideration must be protecting the security of the nation.
	When the legislation was originally considered, we were in some ways discussing this issue in theoretical terms. Since then, the events of 7 July and 21 July have had a real impact on people.

Patrick Mercer: rose

Hazel Blears: I can probably anticipate the point that the hon. Gentleman is going to make, but I gladly give way.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given events in America, Madrid, Bali and elsewhere, her saying that we engaged in a theoretical debate on this issue is extraordinary. Surely she remembers what happened to this country at the hands of the Irish Republican Army, and she has seen what other terrorist groups have done to other countries. This is no theoretical debate.

Hazel Blears: No, it is not, but the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, in discussing control orders, the tenor of the debate in some quarters was to underplay the threat. Many people in the House did not recognise to the extent that he clearly does the real and ever-present terrorist threat. I am on record as saying that it is indeed a real and serious threat following events not just in America but throughout the world in the past decade, during which time many countries have been attacked. The point that I was making was that in some quarters the reality of the threat was perhaps not recognised; that threat has now been put beyond any doubt.

Kenneth Clarke: With the greatest respect, the right hon. Lady is totally misrepresenting the atmosphere that surrounded the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. I recall saying that I expected major terrorist outrages to be committed in this country in time to come, and that there was no way of guaranteeing that we could prevent them. Sadly, Ialong with the right hon. Ladywas proved right on 7 July. The argument was whether the best way to protect ourselves against terrorism was to leave aside the normal principles of the rule of law and to give rise to the possibility, sooner or later, of cases of gross injustice by giving the Secretary of State the right to deprive someone of their liberty, and by denying them the chance of defence or of proper judicial review. That remains an issue, to which the Government promised they would one day return.

Hazel Blears: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have noticed that I chose my words carefully. I used the phrase in some quarters, and in doing so I was not including him. However, it is undeniable that some people were not seized of the real and serious nature of the terrorist threat.
	Reference has been made to miscarriages of justice, and I refer Members to Lord Carlile's report, in which he points out that although he regards control orders as a last resort, he also considers them a proper, justifiable and proportionate way of proceeding. He had access to all the papers, cases and information on which the Secretary of State based his decisions. He says that he would have reached the same conclusions, but that that does not necessarily mean that those conclusions were correct. That is why it is important that judicial consideration be given to all such cases, and that there is a series of checks, balances and safeguards to ensure that we get the balance right between individual rights and the security of the nation. That is a very difficult balance to strike, but everything that I and the Government have done has been aimed at ensuring that we strike that balance in the right way and preserve the essential freedoms that are so precious to us, while at the same time ensuring that we bear down in the best way that we can on those who would commit terrorist atrocities against this country.
	I make no apology for seeking to ensure that this legislation is renewed, so that we can continue to exercise these powers. As I have said, we will have a further opportunity to examine these issues. Broad agreement has been reached with the Opposition parties and the timetable has been set out. In the early part of 2007, we will introduce draft legislation, which will be subject to proper pre-legislative scrutiny. We will try to achieve as much consensus as we can in getting our counter-terrorism law right and making it as robust and fair as possible. Such legislation is in the interests of this nation, and I am sure that all parties will take a very active part in scrutinising it and making sure that the powers are properly framed and used.
	I therefore commend the order to the House and ask that the legislation be renewed for a further 12 months.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to be able to speak on this subject. As always, I was very interested in what the Minister had to say, especially about the lack of understanding of the seriousness of the threat that faces us.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has said that, when this order came before the House a year or so ago, the disagreement between the Opposition and the Government was one of the most serious of this Government's term in office. That is certainly my experience, although I have been in the House only a short time. The Minister has spoken about consensus, so I shall return to the subject of that disagreement on a number of occasions.
	There is no doubt that the review and renewal procedures for control orders are the result of the contest in both Houses that took place before the last election. Lord Carlile's report supports the Government, and lays special emphasis on the close personal attention that the Home Secretary has paid to each case. This time last year, that was definitely a cause for concern and I, for one, was not convinced that the Government would give the right level of scrutiny to a measure with which I disagreed. However, Lord Carlile has said that the scrutiny has been appropriate, and we should acknowledge that the Home Secretary has done his job to the extent that Lord Carlile is happy to congratulate him.
	On 28 February 2005, the Prime Minister was interviewed on Woman's Hour, and his words stand in stark contrast to what has happened since. According to him, the security services were saying that
	you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these peoplethere are several hundreds of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist actsyou have got to give us power in between just surveilling them and being sure enough to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. There are people out there who are determined to destroy our way of life. There is no point in us being naive about it.
	It is interesting that the Prime Minister should have said that before the July attacks, and even more so in light of the past three weeks or so. In that time, there have been appalling demonstrations in the centre of the capital and the case of Abu Hamza, which I am sure that the Minister will agree could have been handled very much better.
	The Minister said that several hundred people were out there, but the fact is that a maximum of 18 individuals have been placed under control orders. Only nine remain under those orders, with the other nine awaiting deportation. How does the Minister rationalise what the Prime Minister said with the reality of the past year?
	In his report, Lord Carlile makes two specific recommendations. First, he said that a Home-Office led monitoring system should ensure that the restrictions imposed were the minimum necessary, consistent with public safety. Secondly, he said that we must ensure that the police reach clear conclusions that the evidence needed to prosecute individual controlees is not available. The report supports the Government's case for control orders, at least in the short term, but Lord Carlile told the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that 20 imams were trying to recruit in prisons and universities.
	I have already referred to the Abu Hamza case, and Lord Carlile's remark about the imams prompts me to ask the Minister how control orders are intended to be used against such targets. I am sure that all hon. Members respect the views of Lord Carlile. Given that only nine people are subject to control orders at present, what measures will be taken against the 20 imams to whom he referred? We are told that the security services have a list of nearly 100 people in this country who continue to preach hatred and to radicalise. I do not think that it is stretching a point to suggest that those people may adopt the sort of persuasive language that led to the attacks that took place on 7 and 21 July.

David Winnick: I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government because too few people are subject to control orders, but I was present for Lord Carlile's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday and I tried to get him to give a figure. He was good enough to give me a figure, but he did not suggest that it was an accurate figure because he could not know that. Even if 20 people were involved, would it really be useful for them to be subject to control orders? Would not it be far betteras I suggested yesterdayfor the congregation concerned to take action to clear out those who are no more than hate merchants?

Patrick Mercer: That would of course be a much better solution. If people were committing criminal acts, it would be much better if they were arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison. I am interested to know whether the Minister sees any overlap between what Lord Carlile said and the working of the control orders. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

David Winnick: I did not get the impression from Lord Carlile that the people concerned were actually committing a crime as such, but their sermons are undesirable, to say the least. It is a rather sensitive subject, involving worshippers as it does, and we have to be careful not to make martyrs where that can be avoided. However, I am in favour of control orders.

Patrick Mercer: I was not at the Committee sitting, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. I would also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that subject.
	I turn to the practical working of control orders. I wonder whether the limited surveillance resources that we have allow control orders to be exercised properly. I have heard from some of the individuals involved in mounting such covert and overt operations that such matters as the working time directive make covert surveillance very difficult. Can the Minister give me an indication of whether we have enough resources to carry out the surveillance for the number of control orders that she has mentioned so far?
	That question leads me to speculate about the limited number of infringements of control orders. While I am delighted that such infringements are very few, I am cynical, because I have been involved in such matters in the past, and I wonder whether infringements simply have not been detected because of the lack of resources available for surveillance. I appreciate that I may be treading on ground of which the Minister is not necessarily aware in great detail, but I would be grateful if she would reply, verbally or in writing.
	We have been told that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has five distinct reservations about the control order regime as it stands. First, the Joint Committee questioned whether a renewal should be allowed without Parliament having had the opportunity to debate whether a derogation to permit deprivations of liberty that challenge article 5.1 of the European convention on human rights should be allowed. That is the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made earlier.
	Secondly, the Joint Committee asked whether procedural protections are compatible with article 5.4 of the ECHR and the right to a fair trial in determination of a criminal charge and to a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights under article 6.1. Thirdly, it asked whether controlees are being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to article 3 of the ECHR. Fourthly, the Joint Committee wondered whether the control order regime has a disproportionate impact on the rights of family memberswe have already heard about that particular provisounder articles 8, 10 and 11. Lastly, it asked whether the control order regime is being applied disproportionately to foreign nationals in breach of article 14 of the ECHR. Those are serious charges against the control order regime and I would be interested to hear how sure the Government are that they could survive a challenge in the courts on whether they are able to derogate from those aspects of the ECHR, or whether they would get egg on their face. Again, if the Minister can give me some reason to feel confident about that it would reassure me.
	We view the control order approach only as a temporary measure, to be replaced by proper judicial process. That is why it needs to be reviewed constantly, kept to a minimum and eventually replaced. The Minister is aware of the consensus produced by the attacks of 7 and 21 July and I am reluctant to destabilise it, but I must make it clear that our lack of opposition to this renewal is based on the fact that we see it as a temporary measure. I hope that the Minister can reassure me.
	In a speech on 2 February, the Home Secretary referred to the Government's attempts to find a legal model to provide the necessary safeguards to allow intercept material to be used as evidence in court. That will allow us further to minimise the use of control orders and, I trust, to get rid of them completely in due course. My experience of the use of intercept makes me aware that we must be extremely careful to defend technology, techniques and sources. Of course, my experience of those techniques is about 10 years out of date and I have no doubt that both time and technology have moved on, but if intercept evidence is admissible in court, we shall be able to obtain more prosecutions and fewer people will be held under control orders, so I welcome what the Home Secretary said about it. Any further light that the Minister can throw on the matter will be welcome.
	We have already referred to memorandums of understanding, about which I have two questions. First, how will the Government deal with an illegal challenge to deportation under the ECHR, where an MOU has already been achieved? There will be difficulties in achieving more than the few MOUs to which the Minister has already referred so, secondly, how will the Government deal with controlees whose parent country fails to agree on an MOU? What will happen to them?
	In paragraphs 71 and 72 of his report Lord Carlile says that it would not be acceptable for significant restrictions on liberty to continue for years on end. If the MOUs cannot be agreed, what course of action will be open to the Government? How will they bring themselves into line with Lord Carlile's statements in paragraphs 71 and 72?
	I welcome the Home Secretary's intention to simplify and consolidate terrorism legislation. That is the building brick for Conservative Members, because too many laws lie unused and too many hastily designed laws are used for inappropriate purposes. Despite the different stories in the press, I hope that we can try to move forward on a consensual basis for the remaining period of the legislation, so I am delighted that the Chancellor seems to be edging towards the creation of a single budget for security purposes. I have no doubt that that will lead to a single Department and a single Minister. If the Government are heading in that direction, I could not be more delighted, and on that aspect they will enjoy consensus in full measure and my 110 per cent. support.
	Although we shall not oppose the further extension of the control order regime by 12 months, I accept the conclusions of Lord Carlile's report and I understand that control orders must be replaced by a proper judicial process. I look forward to effective legislation that will defend not just the lives of our constituents but their liberties as well.

Alistair Carmichael: First, I acknowledge the contribution made in preparation for the debate in the report by my noble and learned Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and in the trenchant report issued yesterday by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Both take a careful and detailed look at the subject. The tone of the two reports is not necessarily immediately compatible, but it is clear on a close reading that their conclusions have a great deal in common, even though they may not be expressed with the same force.
	It is worth reminding the House of the parliamentary history that has brought us to where we are today. On 16 December 2004, the House of Lords ruled that the detention of the nine foreign nationals held at Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The powers created by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were found to be in breach of ECHR on two counts. First, they only offered the possibility of indefinite detention where lesser restrictions on liberty could have been more proportionate. Secondly, they were discriminatory by reason of the fact that they applied only to foreign nationals. Either the detainees would be released, or new and proportionate restrictions had to be devised in the space of a few weeks.
	What we got was a rushed and controversial Bill. We performed our own version of the parliamentary Nessun Dorma, as I recall, and we went from Second Reading to Royal Assent in just two and a half weeks. Our preference at the timeindeed, this was the Home Secretary's stated preferencewas to find ways to prosecute such suspects in the criminal courts. Given the impending renewal of the derogation order, a stop-gap had to be found. I remind the Minister that we were willing to co-operate in finding an appropriate interim measure and that we started from the premise that control orders were acceptable on that basis, provided that the appropriate safeguards could be found.
	We had serious reservations on two points, however. We believed that the standard of proof required for the Secretary of State to sign a non-derogating control order was too low and that the standard of proof should have been raised to that of whether an offence had occurred on the balance of probabilities. We also argued that the power to impose a non-derogating control order should reside with the court, not the Home Secretary.
	Those points were echoed by the Joint Committee's report yesterday. On the first point, it said:
	As far as non-derogating control orders are concerned, reasonable suspicion is in our view too low a threshold to justify the potentially drastic interference with Convention rights which such orders contemplate.
	On the second point, the Committee said:
	We agree with the view expressed by the European Commissioner of Human Rights, that Article 6 ECHR properly requires that non-derogating control orders should initially be made not by the executive but by the judiciary. We also consider that our own constitutional traditions of due process, and of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, requires no less.
	The Committee, however, reserves its strongest criticism for the way in which the various restrictions on liberty available to the Home Secretary in designing a control order have been used. The Committee makes a strong case that the impact of the restriction on liberty is so severe that, in fact, it breaches several of the convention's articles.
	Lord Carlile very helpfully provided a standard list of control order restrictions as an annexe to his report. He notes:
	The obligations include an eighteen hour curfew, limitation of visitors and meetings to those persons approved by the Home Office, submission to searches, no cellular communications or internet, and a geographical restriction on travel.
	If that regime is being imposed on controlees, with little or no variation to account for different risks and different personal circumstances, the Committee is surely correct to state that the obligations are
	so restrictive of liberty as to amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Article 5(1) ECHR
	Thus a deprivation of liberty is taking place without due legal process, contrary to the convention requirements. Similarly, the Committee believes that individuals are being denied a fair trial under articles 5.4 and 6.1, that control orders
	carry a very high risk of subjecting those who are placed under them to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to article 3,
	that there is strong evidence to suggest that the regime
	has a disproportionate impact on the rights of family members under Articles 8, 10 and 11
	and that the law impacts disproportionately on foreign nationals and is therefore in danger of breaching article 14. In fact, that is the very point that started our parliamentary journey with the judgment in 2004.
	Let us also remember that the whole point of control orders was to remove the need for a derogation under the ECHR. The Act contains powers for the Home Secretary to issue a derogating control order. We were given to understand that that meant 24-hour house arrest, but that a vote of Parliament would be necessary to approve a formal derogation of the sort that was required by the Belmarsh legislation. The Act, however, neglected to set out any criteria for determining the dividing line between the control orders that would require a derogation and those that would not. This is a question that will ultimately be tested in the courts. In the meantime, can the Minister tell me where she thinks the line lies? What legal advice has she received and how sure can she be that the pro forma list of restrictions that was reproduced in Lord Carlile's report does not cross that threshold?
	The Minister has prayed in aid Lord Carlile's report a great deal tonight. The truth is, however, that it is not the glowing endorsement that she claims it to be. Lord Carlile expresses very serious concerns about the question of proportionality. He says:
	On any view those obligations are extremely restrictive. They have not been found to amount to the triggering of derogation, indeed there has been no challenge so far on that basisbut the cusp is narrow.
	Of course, the Home Secretary could have chosen to treat these control orders as meeting the threshold for derogation, in which case the higher safeguards in terms of the standard of proof and the role of the court would have applied. On what basis was the decision not to do that taken? The Minister may not be able to answer that question tonight, but I suggest that it is something that the Home Secretary should inform the House about. I hope that if he does not do so by placing information in the Library, he will, as is customary, do so in a letter to myself and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).
	As we have heard, Lord Carlile does not call for a derogation but for
	the establishment of a Home Office led procedure whereby officials and representatives of the control authorities meet regularly to monitor each case, with a view to advising on a continuing basis as to the necessity of the obligations imposed on each controlee.
	I hope that that will be acted upon with rather more dispatch than the Minister indicated in her speech. There is not a great deal of time; a great deal of urgency is attached to the matter.
	I again make the point about prosecution that I made to the Minister in an intervention earlier. Lord Carlile says:
	I have seen letters from chief officers of police in relation to each controlee certifying that there was no realistic prospect of prosecution. Little is given by way of reasons.
	Is that not reminiscent of the situation that we had with the Belmarsh detainees? Some of them were detained for several years, yet answers to parliamentary questions indicated that the police conducted no ongoing investigation during that time with a view to bringing them to trial. That demonstrated a complacency on the part of the Government. Once these extraordinary powers are in place, there is surely a moral duty on the Home Secretary to pursue prosecutions. That is the undertaking that we have always been given in the House. In the case of the 2005 Act, there is a statutory duty and it concerns me that the Home Secretary does not appear to be fulfilling it.
	Neglect would also be an appropriate word to describe the unintended consequences of the Act on the innocent families of those who are subject to control orders. That is the point on which the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) intervened on the Minister earlier. She cannot afford to be complacent or blas on that issue.
	The annexe attached to Lord Carlile's report reveals another interesting fact. Hon. Members will have noted that it shows that there is essentially a fill-in-the-gaps exercise that allows the Home Office to tailor a document to include details such as a suspect's address and a list of individuals with whom he is not allowed to communicate. I was rather surprised to read the following examples of statements that are used:
	You shall not outside of the residence . . . attend any pre-arranged meetings or gatherings (other than attending, but not leading, group prayers at a mosque)
	and
	You shall only attend one mosque of your choosing, subject to prior approval from the Home Office before your first visit.
	The system seems pretty much like one designed for Muslims. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is not in the Chamber because he said during our earlier debate on the Terrorism Bill that in his experience, which is probably more substantial than that of anyone else in the House, the Muslim community was beginning to feel persecuted by the nature of the Government's terrorism legislation. When one sees conditions framed in such terms, one can certainly understand why. Why are not more neutral phrases used, such as place of worship, instead of mosque? Do not the documents lend credence to those in the community who argue that the Government's anti-terrorism powers are used disproportionately against Muslims? Will such an approach build the inter-community harmony on which the Government put so much stress?
	The Government's approach to terrorism is a messit has been a mess since November 2001. We want to hear from the Government how we shall get out of that mess. In the closing debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the Home Secretary produced a timetable for further legislation that would have given the House the opportunity to consider in detail and change the control orders regime. A commitment was given to produce a draft Bill in the late autumn of 2005 and introduce a substantive counter-terrorism Bill in spring 2006. The events of 7 July led to renegotiation among the three main parties. It was agreed that control orders would be decoupled from other new offences and considered in a separate Bill in the early part of 2006.
	The Home Secretary indicated in his statement on 2 February that he favoured a further rethink, with draft legislation produced in spring 2007, followed by a Bill that would almost certainly be carried over into the next Session. I have no difficulty with the concept that a consolidating Bill is necessary. Such a Bill is inevitable because of the extremely rushed way in which we deal with much of the terrorism legislation that comes before the House. It is almost certainly inevitable as a result of the way in which the Government use programme motions, which mean that Bills do not receive proper scrutiny. The principal reason given for the time scale was the fact that the various reviews on the definition of terrorism needed to be concluded, but the definition is not central to the operation of control orders, although it is central to other measures, such as those in the Terrorism Bill.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend is making important points. The events of July may have given the Government room to drop back from their earlier timetablehe was right to point out that that has happenedbut the Government asked Lord Carlile to review the definition of terrorism to avoid conflict on another matter and the process is not the sort of force majeure that should allow the timetable on control orders to move. The review is delaying a decision on the definition of terrorism and substantive action to deal with control orders.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not think that I can add to my hon. Friend's good point.
	We accept the need for a consolidating Bill to bring together the disparate elements of anti-terrorism legislation, and the debate has demonstrated that control orders must be dealt with soon. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report shows that they cannot be left in place for as long as the Government seem to propose. Although the renewal of the powers is deeply unsatisfactory, we shall not oppose the order, for the simple reason that we believe that there should be a credible alternative on the statute book before we take that step. However, if the Terrorism Bill is passed by Parliament, that will change. The new offences of acts preparatory to terrorism and encouragement to terrorism are designed to plug gaps in the law and should have a major impact in the area that we are discussing tonight, and by the end of the year we shall have a good idea of how those powers are working.
	I ask the Minister to look again at the proposed timetable for legislation. It is surely possible to produce a Bill that will allow the House to consider the case for amending the control orders legislation by January next year, and to make time available to make those amendments to the law before the order before us tonight comes up for renewal again next March. As I said, we shall not oppose the renewal order tonight, but I put the Minister on notice: if the Government fail to honour the commitments that they made, our position cannot be guaranteed this time next year.
	In conclusion, I cannot do better than quote the view of Liberty, set out in its briefing for tonight's debate. It says:
	Terrorism poses a threat to the rule of law, to our democratic values and to our human rights. By responding to terrorism with legislation which undermines these very values we also undermine the ultimate antidote to the threat from terrorism and the values that separate us from the terrorist.

Kenneth Clarke: I begin by protecting myself against allegations that I might be regarded as soft on terrorism if I query the order. I am sure that we face a continuing and serious threat of terrorism, and I do not think that anyone in this House can guarantee that we will not experience again attacks on the scale of the ones seen on 7 July, or even worse. We all hope that we will not, but plainly it is one of the first duties of Government to be vigilant against that danger.
	I accept that the people who pose that threat cannot always be dealt with by the ordinary process of the criminal law. I have never queried the fact that, in certain circumstances, one has to anticipate the dangers that such people might create and take preventive measures. I also accept that one cannot always resolve such cases by producing criminal charges to be considered by a jury in the ordinary, open process that, in normal circumstances, everyone in this country cherishes.
	I do not think that any significant opponents of the Act on which control orders are based challenged either of those propositions when the Government got into so much trouble. The Government are now in trouble for failing to explain why, for several years, no prosecution took place of a man who has just been convicted under a 19th century law when he was parading up and down the country plainly inciting violencebut the case of Abu Hamza lies outside the scope of this debate, so I shall not dwell on it.
	Let me remind the House of the circumstances in which the 2005 Act was passed, which gave rise to the need for the order before the House tonight. The Government were in a state of acute crisis when they produced that legislation and they came within a whisker of losing the entire Bill because they could not persuade the House of Lords, certainly, and a substantial body of opinion in this House that they were entitled to have control orders in the form that they preferred.
	The legislation aroused great public concernit was the dominant political issue of the day. There was a great crisis, with the Prime Minister's views on how Parliament should be handled and how the matter should be resolved clearly in conflict with the views of his then new Home Secretary. The public were aware that, for the first time, the Government were proposing that someone in this country should be deprived of their liberty, or have substantial constraints put on their liberty, on the order of a politicianthe Secretary of Stateand not of a judge. It was a dramatic change to all our traditions. I am not criticising the Home Secretary, who is a distinguished holder of his post and whom I hold in regard, but a fundamental principle was being changed in the proposal that a politician, not a judge, should be able to deprive a person of their liberty.
	On the question whether there would be any judicial review the Government resisted even the involvement of a judge, and a modest system was then put in place. Finally, there was tremendous debate in both Houses about the standards that were set for the Secretary of State before he could use his powers. The Bill, alas, was eventually accepted on the basis that under non-derogating orders it was necessary only for the Secretary of State to have reasonable suspicion of someone who was subject to those orders. There was no requirement that he should be certain that he had the right person and there was no balance of probabilities to assess whether someone was probably responsible or had threatened to do things of concern. It was merely sufficient for the Secretary of State to have reasonable suspicion about someone and for the threat to be so grave that the powers should be used.
	That was the nature of the crisis facing the Government. I do not believe that the Bill would have survived the process to which we give the absurd name of ping-pong if the Government had not said that they would legislate in the near future so that Parliament could address all those matters. The procedure was rushed, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) reminded usproceedings on the Bill took two and a half weeks from start to finish, and it was drastically rewrittenand we were promised a repeat of the legislative process in spring 2006 in which the principle of control orders and many other things in the measure could be addressed. That undertaking has not been honoured.
	There is all-party agreement because of the arguments about 7 July which, I am afraid, did not change anything. It was exactly the kind of thing that we had discussed, arguing about how best we could defend ourselves against such an eventuality. May I suggest to Opposition spokesmen that the constant allegations that we are soft on terrorism may have begun to have an effect if they result in our raising these important matters? Everyone retreatedit is no good one or two hon. Members saying that we should have held the Government to the spring 2006 arrangement and that we should have had a proper Bill and a proper debate. Instead, we have the order, which was trailed during those debates. Some people including, I believe, myselfI am not sure, as I have not read the debate recentlypredicted that the offer of renewal within 12 months and early legislation would be reduced to a routine debate in which only a few Members would participate and in which the motion would go through on the nod. Twelve months ago, both Houses were full of hundreds of Members consumed with passion for the great issue of civil liberty, saying that the Government of the day should not have their way unless we were satisfied that a British citizen's fundamental rights were safe. The number of Members in the Chamber today scarcely reaches double figures, and the debate, which is restricted to an hour and a half, is being held on the eve of a recess. The vast majority of hon. Members are well on their way to wherever they will spend the weekend.

Alistair Carmichael: I intervene merely to place on the record the fact that there are 13 hon. Members in the Chamber.

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is better than that of the Government Chief Whip, although hers has improved.
	I therefore have severe doubts about whether we have moved further forward. The Minister kindly thanked the all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights for its work. It could only look at the order after it was announced on 2 February, and we are grateful that it has produced a report on the renewal of control orders in the very short time that it was given. Besides considering derogation from the European convention and so on, it touched on the way in which control orders work and their fundamental nature, as hon. Members have said. Page 4 of the report says:
	The Committee's overall conclusion on this matter is that it has significant concerns about whether, in the absence of sufficient safeguards, this regime of control orders is compatible with the rule of law and with well-established principles governing the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary.
	The Committee complainedI quote from page 9that
	Instead of detailed debate and scrutiny of a Bill there will now be a single debate in each House with no opportunity to amend the legislation.
	That refers to the present debate. The Committee argued strongly against the renewal of the legislation unless Parliament had time to debate it.
	That underlines the fact that the matter must not be allowed to be buried. It is a feature of modern politics that the agenda moves on. What is an issue of great principle upon which the political futures of Ministers and the stability of Governments depend may last for a week while it takes the headlines, and it returns only if some event or some whim of the media brings it back again. If we are not careful, we are in danger of the tremendous near-constitutional crises of 12 months ago being reduced to renewal orders such as this 12 months later and steadily becoming part of the routine background of politics and our law, where what we all thought were great principles 12 months ago are regarded as silly and fuddy-duddy and will never again be revisited.
	We are told that there will be a consolidating Bill early in 2007. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about that. It would be utterly shameful if for any reason that timetable slipped. I take it from everything that the Minister of State said that that Bill will address in principle the content of the legislation. She implied strongly that that was the case.
	Consolidating legislation normally just puts together existing Acts of Parliament. It is out of order to start challenging the content of a consolidating Bill on its merits. I have not served on one of those Committees for very many years, but my recollection of the Committee stage of a consolidating Bill is that one is in order if one queries whether it is correctly being consolidated and correctly being restated, but to query whether the measure should ever have been passed in the first place is completely out of order.
	I trust that the word consolidating is not being used in its strict sense, and that the Minister will be able to reassure us that what she means is that in 2007 a Bill will be introduced covering the entire scope of our exceptional terrorism legislation and that it will be redrafted in the light of experience, so giving the House and the other place an opportunity to consider and amend it. Because of the rushed Bill 12 months ago and because of today's debate, neither House has ever had a chance to consider properly and at length the principles of control orders and of whether a politician should be allowed to deprive someone of his liberty without a trial and without that person having any opportunity of knowing exactly what is the basis of the charges that are being made against him.
	I hope we will get the reassurance that the timetable will not slip again and that we will have a proper debate on the fundamentals. My major fear, which I have already expressed, but it is the most important feeling I have and the reason that I come along to take part in the debate again, is that these matters cease to be a crisis, become routine and then the use of them grows.
	The first of the extraordinary pieces of legislation that the Government introduced in this field was in 2001 and has already led to the most extraordinary uses. We accept that vast numbers of people are being stopped and searched under anti-terrorism legislation, far beyond anything we ever expected. A heckler at a party   conference was detained under anti-terrorism legislation because he upset the Foreign Secretary, and a lady reading a document at the cenotaph with a list of names was arrestedanybody, it seems, but somebody waving a placard demanding death for those who defame their religion, is getting arrested quite causally under some of the provisions.
	Control orders are a more serious matter. At present only nine people are subject to them. One is a British citizen, which gives rise to the question whether the orders are being used in a discriminatory fashion. If this House gets relaxed about control orders and we stop hearing concern about the underlying principles, how quickly will that number grow? How long will it be before 50 people are held for one reason or another and scrutinised more or less adequately? Quite a lot of people may be deprived of their fundamental liberty to know what they have been charged with. What chance will they have of challenging such an allegation, satisfying a judge of their innocence and not being subject to a decision made by a political officeholder who has been given far too many powers by Parliament?
	If those powers are left on the statute book, someone will abuse them one day. The current Home Secretary is extremely conscientious and would not abuse any of the powers that his office gives him. However, the legislation is there for the future, and who knows what future Home Secretaries will do if we become complacent about the legislation, which in my personal opinion we should never have passed in the first place.

John McDonnell: I want to address the same point as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). When the House debated the legislation, it agreed to enact this unusual process on the basis that the measures were proportionate to the threat that faced the country at the time. If hon. Members had been able to read the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the impact of the measure on the individuals concerned and, more importantly, their wives, children and families, I wonder whether they would have accepted that it was proportionate. In the report, Lord Carlile states:
	The key to the obligations is proportionality. In each case they must be proportionate to the risk to national security presented by the controlee. I would urge that in each case the individual risks are examined closely, and the minimum obligations consistent with public safety are imposed.
	Page 63 of the report includes evidence from Liberty about the impact of the operation of control orders on the individuals concerned. The evidence is not only distressing, but well beyond what hon. Members assumed would be the impact when they agreed to the process. One person was
	required to comply with his curfew between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am, was entirely isolated in the premises in which he was placed in March 2005 after being taken abruptly from Broadmoor Hospital and had no means of contacting the outside world. He . . . became an outpatient of concern to his local psychiatric hospital. On several occasions
	Liberty
	became aware he was attempting to take his life, on one occasion by attempting to throw himself out of a window. His life, after release under a Control Order, has been one beset by serious psychiatric, physical and emotional difficulty.
	It behoves a Government who place an individual in such circumstances to ensure that support is available.
	Page 72 of the report includes evidence from Gareth Peirce about
	The return home of men already mentally damaged by indefinite detention for three and a half years to homes where families had also been damaged, or had been unaccustomed to the presence of their father or husband for a number of years.
	That
	created circumstances in which considerable flexibility and adjustment could be anticipated as being required, and where support for those in those homes including support on an easily accessible basis would clearly be needed. Instead, the Control Orders have ensured that in large part support is not available . . . The families believe themselves to be imprisoned in their own homes, to be stigmatised and isolated from society.
	The evidence includes cases in which children have been affected by what has happened to their parents. When we enacted the legislation on control orders, no one appreciated the scale of the Government's lack of concern about individual cases, their failure to provide support and the impact on the children involved.
	Today's debate is limited, and I concur with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that it was predictable that instead of its becoming a major debate each year, a derisory amount of time would be allocated and few hon. Members would be interested.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I was very concerned about control orders in the first place, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons from those of the hon. Gentleman, who speaks eloquently on these matters, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. Does he agree we should insist upon habeas corpus, a fair trial, and due process within the terms of our own legislation instead of getting caught up in the tortuous attempts to provide for compliance with the European convention on human rights, which creates more problems than it solves?

John McDonnell: I made my position clear in the previous debate. I believe that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we should apply habeas corpus and have due process of law. If the Government wanted to propose alterations to those processes, they should have done so swiftly with primary legislation and a thorough debate. We had a debate about the enactment of control orders and the promise of an opportunity of primary legislation, that would be fully debated in this House within a limited period of time. That has not occurred and has yet again been put off.
	Several people are suffering as a result of control ordersnot only the individuals themselves, who have as yet had nothing proven against them in law, but more importantly their wives and children, against whom we have no objections or allegations. They are suffering through a lack of support from the state and a lack of adequate consideration of the proportionality of the effects of control orders in these individual cases.
	I urge the Minister not only to bring back as swiftly as possible the debate about primary legislation but to provide a report on the impact of control orders on the individuals concerned, on a case-by-case basis, which could be examined by Members who were involved in the original debate on the process. It is the Government's responsibility to protect those individuals, who have not as yet been prosecuted for anything, and, more importantly, to protect their families and give them adequate support.

Hazel Blears: I will do my best to respond to the remarks that Members have made. Although, as has been said, the House is not particularly full, that did not undermine the quality of the contributions that they made to the debate on these very important matters.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) for recognising that the Home Secretary has considered all these cases in detail and in depth, personally making the decisions and looking at the intelligence and information. Lord Carlile confirms that the Home Secretary has fulfilled his duties in a very responsible manner. I am also grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for his comments about the Home Secretary's approach.
	We regard these matters as extremely serious and important because they inevitably involve constraints that are put upon people to limit their freedom of action. They are certainly not taken lightly.
	The hon. Member for Newark raised some practical issues about the surveillance resources made available to the police and the security service to allow them to monitor control orders. He will have heard me say on previous occasions that we have substantially improved the resources available to the police, special branch and the Security Service. There have been dramatic increases in the numbers of people working in those services, and we are confident that there are sufficient resources for the control order regime, as it currently operates, to run effectively. I cannot go into any further detail than thatI am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me tobut there are certainly enough resources in place to ensure proper monitoring of the conditions that have been imposed on people.
	The hon. Member for Newark, among others, raised issues that were highlighted in the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Let me go through some of those briefly, as I cannot give an in-depth analysis in the time available. Members asked about non-derogating control orders being operated in a way that amounts to a deprivation of liberty. The orders were considered by the court and made with the permission of the court, which did not consider that they amounted to derogating control orders. None of the people concerned, all of whom are legally represented, has made a legal challenge to say that the prohibitions placed upon them are such that in total they would amount to a derogating order.
	There has been no legal challenge to that effect. Lord Carlile says that the prohibitions are restrictive in some cases, but he does not believe that they fulfil the definition of deprivation of liberty, although they approach the cusp of that. Those are his words and he clearly takes a careful view. The fact that the orders have not been challenged is important because it is always open to those subject to them to make such a challenge.
	The compatibility of the procedural protections with the provisions of the European convention on human rights has been questioned. It is important to stress that we do not accept that control order proceedings amount to a criminal charge, which engages all the rights that pertain to a trial situation. We are considering an application for a civil order and the proceedings are regulated by civil rules of procedure. As I have said, it involves a two-stage test. First, is there a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in terrorism? If sothe second testis it necessary to make the order to protect the public from whatever action the person might commit? There is therefore a range of civil procedure regulations for making control orders. I am not convinced at this stage that the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights constitutes the right approach.
	Hon. Members asked whether the subjects of control orders suffered inhuman and degrading treatment. We do not accept that to be the case. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has visited the UK and it will report on some issues in March. Our view is that the prohibitions do not constitute inhuman and degrading treatment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about the families of those subject to control orders. Those are serious questions and we are trying to get the balance rightLord Carlile said that proportionality was key. He is satisfied that, as a last resort, control orders are a proportionate safety valve, as he put it, to protect the public. Lord Carlile had access to all the information and intelligence and he said that he would have made the same decisions as the Home Secretary. With great respect, Liberty has not had access to that information and intelligence. It cannot therefore strike the balance between prohibitions on a person who is involved in terrorism and for whom it is necessary to make an order and the rights of the family. One has to see the situation in the round, with access to the information about how dangerous the individual may be.
	We are considering circumstances in which there are fairly dangerous people whom one cannot prosecute for various reasons, or deport. We therefore have control orders. The alternative is no prohibitions or restrictions on them and allowing them to walk the streets in freedom. I am sure that many people would be seriously worried about that.

Mary Creagh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights met on Monday and that it divided on several paragraphs in the report? I draw that to hon. Members' attention because the report was not unanimous. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great difference between being the subject of a control order and being in a category A prison such as Wakefield in my constituency? The freedom and ability to have contact are different in those two circumstances.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend shows that there is not unanimity on those difficult issues. However, I shall study the Committee's report in great detail. She makes the important point that a control order, even if it requires fairly extensive restrictions on liberty, means that family contact, which it is clearly important to maintain, can continue.

Evan Harris: On the court judgment that the control orders do not require derogation, I draw the Minister's attention to the paragraph in the Joint Committee report that points out that the obligations by themselves may not amount to a deprivation of liberty but that they may be combined with other obligations. Lord Carlile drew attention to the fact that duration, which is not known at the outset, and all the specifics of a case may have a bearing on whether it amounts to a deprivation of liberty, which would require article 5 derogation.

Hazel Blears: I have made the point that none of the orders has been subject to challenge. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the totality of the restrictions, and I shall come to the length of the orders in a moment.
	On the question of discrimination, we reject the possibility of the orders being applied disproportionately to foreign nationals. Control orders are made on the basis of risk, not of nationality. Indeed, there is a control order in place on a UK citizen at the moment. The orders last for only 12 months, and have to be reviewed and renewed after that period. All the circumstances have to be looked at afresh. It is possible that, after an order has been in place for a year, the danger that was posed by an individual might have decreasedin regard to their contact with other individuals, for examplebut all those issues would have to be examined. Lord Carlile expressed a genuine concern that orders should not remain in place for years and years, but they can be reviewed after 12 months.
	The hon. Member for Newark mentioned memorandums of understanding and asked what would happen if no memorandum were agreed. I can assure him that we detain people pending deportation only if we are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of their being deported. That is why we are so keen to work on getting the memorandums of understanding in place as quickly as possible. We have had some success, and we are continuing to work on that.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) mentioned the standard of proof. We have debated that issue at length, and the House decided on an appropriate standard. He asked whether the obligations passed the threshold. We sought the permission of the court in relation to the orders containing more stringent conditions, and the court did not think that they amounted to derogating orders. He also mentioned the pro forma that contained a prohibition on attending a mosque. I am informed that that is simply an example from an individual case, and that it is not a pro forma that applies to everyone. These obligations are tailored to the individual concerned. They do not pick out people from a particular faith or community.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I have only 30 seconds left.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe brought to our attention the great importance of these issues. I am grateful for his continuing contribution to the debate, and I have no doubt that he will continue to raise the issues at every possible opportunity. I can confirm that, although we have referred to this as consolidating legislation, there will be an opportunity to examine each element of the terrorism legislation, especially the amendments on the control orders. He commented earlier on the time scale for this debate. We are not on the eve of a recess; there is a full day's sitting tomorrow, and we have had a proper debate today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Stormont Estate (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved. [Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Pension Protection Fund (Risk-based Pension Protection Levy) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	Orchard Lea Residential Care Home

Angela Browning: I wish to present a petition of some 350 signatures to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The humble petition of Rosemary Cecilia Spooner and staff, residents, carers and supporters of Orchard Lea residential care home, Cullompton, Devon.
	Sheweth that the decision by Devon County Council to close Orchard Lea is opposed by the petitioners.
	Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will consider the impact of the Care Standards Act and the presumption of care in the community which fails to address the needs of the current residents of Orchard Lea or the future residential needs of elderly people, in the Cullompton area.
	To lie upon the Table.

Health Bill

David Taylor: The historic vote that we took 24 hours ago was a major leap forward for public health in England, and the progenitors of the long and successful campaign to highlight the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke are numerous. They include two organisations that are anxious to see the Health Bill reach the statute book undiluted. They have therefore organised two separate petitions, which I rise to present.
	The first has been facilitated by the Health Service Journal. I commend the editor, Nick Edwards, and his colleague, Helen Mooney, and others, for their tremendous efforts. The names on the petition represent a broad spectrum of NHS staff, including the senior managers and clinicians who have to cope with the effects of poor public health.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The petition from the Health Service Journal and 1,092 staff and managers in NHS organisations.
	Declares that the Health Service Journal and signatories, as health professionals and managers working in the NHS, support the House of Commons in the enactment of legislation to eliminate tobacco smoke in all enclosed public places and work-places.
	The petitioners therefore support a comprehensive ban on second-hand tobacco smoke in enclosed public places and work-places, without which health inequalities in England will deepen, and urge the Commons to see that the Health Bill will not be weakened in that regard.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

David Taylor: The second petition is of a professional group charged with the promotion of public health at community level, the Association of Directors of Public Health. It is signed by Dr. Steven Whitehead of the Leicester City West primary care trust and 190 other directors of public health.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the Association of Directors of Public Health and 190 signatories from their membership.
	Declares that the Association of Directors of Public Health and their member signatories believe that:
	There should be a complete ban on smoking in public places and workplaces in England. A partial ban would permit deaths and occupational injuries due to second hand smoke to continue; it would be difficult to enforce and will increase health inequalities. Therefore, as serving Directors of Public Health, they urge parliament to adopt a total ban.
	The petitioners therefore support the enactment of the legislation necessary to afford people in England protection without exemptions, from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke and urge the Commons to see that the Health Bill will not be weakened in that regard.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

China (Human Rights)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Tony Cunningham.]

David Amess: I welcome this opportunity to debate human rights in China in the House. I fully understand that the Minister has a difficult card to play, but I hope that I and other hon. Members who might contribute will encourage him to tell the House clearly and firmly how the Government feel about human rights as they exist in China at the moment.
	In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly set forth the universal declaration of human rights to inculcate the level of human decency to which all people were entitled. Fifty-eight years later, however, its largest member state and the country with the third largest economy in the world is allowed to violate article after article with impunity. I want the Minister, as a representative of the Government, to respond to that. It is appalling that the largest member state of the United Nations is being allowed to get away with that.
	China has an atrocious record on human rights abuses. Without the intervention of the international community and individual trading partners that economically empower the communist regime, such as the United Kingdom, there is little hope for the innocent citizens seeking justice, the journalists seeking to broadcast the intricate horrors perpetuated by the Chinese Government, the religious individuals seeking to express peacefully their devotion, the women seeking to free themselves from reproductive regulation and all within China who desire to be free of want, strife, fear of torture and arbitrary punishment.
	Article 19 of the United Nations declaration of human rights states:
	Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

David Taylor: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is about to speak about the internet. Before he does so, may I ask whether he agrees that there is little doubt that the Chinese are vastly freer than they were during Mao's period of misrule, although conditions for intellectuals have become rather tougher, not least because of the internet? During the Russian repression, samizdat literature was an early sign that things were breaking up; nowadays the internet gives activists the necessary oxygen of publicity, which is being clamped down on in China. Nevertheless, Chinese society is surely freer than it was 20 years ago.

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman has not seen my speech, but he has certainly read my mind, as I am about to deal with that point. I certainly agree that Chinese society is freer than when Chairman Mao ran the regime, but, like the hon. Gentleman, I am very concerned about the oppression of intellectuals and their freedom to express themselves in writing and conversation.
	The Chinese Government's censorship of the print and broadcast media has resulted in the imprisonment of many brave journalists who have dared to breach their constraints. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 32 journalists are currently imprisoned in China, 15 of whom are internet journalists. China is the world leader in imprisoning journalists. That is something to be proud ofI don't think!
	One such journalist is Shi Tao, who is serving a 10-year sentence for sending an e-mail, via his Yahoo account, to the United States illuminating the tenets of a Government directive on how reporters were to cover the anniversary of the Tiananmen square massacre in order to quell any potential social unrest. Some of us remember only too clearly what happened in Tiananmen square, and the free world should never forget those disgraceful scenes.
	Shi Tao was officially charged with
	illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities.
	His arrest is of particular concern, as Yahoo provided the Government with the details of the e-mail and Tao's account information. That is only one example of a series of submissions by huge IT corporations that have bowed to the demands of Chinese officials and suppressed their consumers' rights to freedom of expression and exchange of information.
	Last year Microsoft launched a portal that blocked such democratically inclined terms as freedom. More recently, the company closed down Michael Anti's online blog after he articulated support for a strike against the politically motivated sacking of an officer of an editor at the Beijing News. Google also contributed to the restriction of accessible information for Chinese citizens in the launching of a self-censoring search engine. According to a statement by the company, it has
	removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy.
	Those examples of corporate adherence to the insidious policies of the Chinese Government that limit freedom of expression and information will only serve to further circumstances in which citizens are devoid of accurate information on world conditions and affairs that could help them to rise above their suppressive regimeand Britain remains silent.
	Article 18 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights states:
	Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
	Despite the fact that the Chinese constitution asserts that all Chinese citizens enjoy the right to exercise their religion, the Chinese Government officially recognise only five religions. Religious affiliation and practice outside the sanctioned sects does persist, but at the risk of beatings, humiliation, welfare deductions, the withholding of medical treatment, torture, imprisonment, detainment at re-education labour camps, and even submission to
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

David Amess: I was getting carried away there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not realising that 7 o'clock had arrived.
	As I was saying, such affiliation and practice does exist, but at the risk even of submission to mental institutions.
	In a report on religious freedom, Christian Solidarity Worldwide lists the plethora of cases against Protestants and Catholics in China. Next Wednesday, I will lead a delegation to meet Pope Benedict XVI, and I hope to raise that issue with him.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. Does he share my concern that those who persecute Christians in China have forgotten the good work that Christian missionaries did in bringing education to the Chinese over the past 200 years?

David Amess: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it is a shame that that point is entirely missed. I am delighted that he has taken this opportunity to remind the House and the Chinese Government of it.

David Taylor: rose

David Drew: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. David Drew.

David Drew: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be very brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) obviously wants to get in. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on raising the issue of Christianity in China. He doubtless met the pastor whom I met when Christian Solidarity Worldwide brought him over from China 18 months ago. The most damaging evidence against the Chinese concerns their efforts to close house churches. Many Christians can pray only in their own homes, but even then the secret police spy on them and try to break up house churches. That is disgraceful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that the Government could do is to make it clear that such conduct is outwith any form of acceptable behaviour?

David Amess: I agree entirely. I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that he will respond to that point when he winds up. The pastor's visit was deeply moving and we were all shocked by what he had to tell us.
	Page after page of the CSW report lists cases involving the beating, torture and arrest of church patrons, Bible students, pastors and other church leaders. It also describes the ongoing repression of the underground Catholic Churchanother issue that I shall raise with the Popeand a situation that has resulted in all 40 bishops being jailed, put under house arrest or strict surveillance, or going into hiding. Authorities in the Xinjiang region, which contains some 8 million Uighur Muslims, are, according to the UN Commission on Human Rights, responsible for
	systematic torture and the largest number of executions for those accused of state security crimes in China.
	Religious leaders are required to pass loyalty tests. Government approval for religious activities is mandatory. Those aged under 18 are prevented from receiving religious instruction or entering mosques, and there are extremely strict controls over the publication of religious texts.
	The Falun Gong has been classified by the Chinese Government as a heretical cult, and its leaders are continually subject to criminal sanctions. Its members are tried when they refuse to renounce their religion, even after spending time in re-education camps. Law firms have been forbidden from consulting, or offering legal advice to, its members, and its affiliates have been put into prison, labour camps and psychiatric institutions without trial.

David Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this part of his speech, will he pay tribute to the adherents of the Falun Gong beliefs in the UK? They have mounted a sustained, vigorous and very effective campaign to alert Parliament and other organisations to the problems faced by Falun Gong in China.

David Amess: I welcome the opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those brave people in this country who are fighting for what they believe in. I salute what they are doing, and I hope that the Minister will find time to comment on the Government's approach to what they are trying to do.
	Tibetan Buddhists continue to face persecution as the Chinese Government attempt to diminish support for their independence. They interfere in every aspect of Tibetan life, and impose restrictions on the numbers of monks, nuns and monasteries, while populating all occupations with secular administrators. Leaders are continually persecuted, beaten and exiledand Britain remains silent.
	Article 9 of the UN declaration on human rights states:
	No one should subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.
	As has been noted previously, there are numerous examples of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile among religious and media groups, but those instances of injustice are not limited to them. Innocent citizens filing petitionsthe only real means of recourse, albeit typically futilehave been beaten and arrested for seeking justice on matters such as work compensation, local authority abuse and obtaining electricity, among other things.
	Political dissidents are targeted and subjected to some of the cruellest treatment. Often, they end up being incarcerated in mental institutions, as happened with the pro-democracy Wang Wanxing. In such instances, the so-called criminals are forced to undergo electro-shock therapy and to ingest high doses of antipsychotic drugs. They live in terror among people who are truly insane and often violent.
	Sadly, defenders of human rights are the group most targeted for illegal arrest. Zhen Enchong is a lawyer and human rights activist. He has been in prison for three years, and his family has been denied the ability to visit him or communicate with him. That perpetuates fears of ruthless beatings and mistreatment. When he was finally allowed to speak to his family, he reported that he had received a severe beating for requesting a piece of paper on which to write a letter to the Government listing the names of people who had died after forcible relocation.
	Many people regarded as disturbances to the state are punished by being incarcerated in re-education through labour camps. They can be held without charge for up to four years, with no legal counsel and no opportunity to face trial or undergo judicial review of their case.
	China's corrections institution can boast of one statisticits position as the global leader in executions. Amnesty International has said that at least 3,400 executions84 per cent. of the global totalwere performed last year, while another 6,000 people were condemned to death in China alone. The true figures are classified as state secrets, but are believed to be much higher.
	People can be sentenced to death when found guilty of one of 68 crimes, ranging from murder to non-violent and economic offences that include tax fraud, smuggling and counterfeiting. Those statistics are a cause for much concern, given the widespread flaws in the judicial system such as lack of transparency and rampant corruption, and the seeming impossibility of attaining justice or even recourse, especially in rural Chinayet Britain remains silent.
	Given those aspects of the Chinese criminal justice system and the criminal practices the Government exert on their female population, I am baffled by the lack of concern shown by our Government about China's one-child policy and reproductive regulations. Article 16.3 of the United Nations declaration of human rights states:
	The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
	That being so, it is unbelievable that the Chinese Government could actually sanction a policy of murder and prevention of life, via forced abortion and sterilisation, to ensure the obedience of the female population to the one-child rule, through the Population Association of China. In four months in the Linyi county alone, 7,000 women were subjected to such reproductive practices. According to Chinese Government statistics, IUDs and sterilisation account for more than 80 per cent. of all birth control methods employed. Thanks to reports such as Lord Alton's column in The Universe pertaining to China's one-child policy, those disgraceful policies are now being uncovered. However, the UK still provides international aid that helps fund agencies that finance the Chinese Population Association, such as the United Nations Population Fundthe UNFPA. In contrast, the United States has cut all funding to the UNFPA and instead directed the monetary contribution to humanitarian organisations that help women and children directly.
	Not only are women in China being subjected to horrid reproductive procedures, but the female gender suffers from the moment of conception. There is a natural inclination towards male children in order to perpetuate the family name. That traditional preference has led to massive female infanticide, sex-selective abortions, and abandonment and neglect of baby girls. In 2002, a survey in the Hainan province discovered that 68 per cent. of all abortions were of female foetuses. The male-female birth ratio is 116.9:100, whereas the global norm is 106:100. For second births, the ratio jumps to 151.9:100. Women are also threatened with job loss,demotion, eviction, property confiscation and exorbitant fines up to 10 times annual income.
	I would like the Minister to address the following points. Why is the Government's criticism of China much weaker than that directed at other countries that commit human rights abuses, such as Zimbabwe? Why do the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary not publicly criticise China in the same forthright terms as their own human rights annual report? Do the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary stand by the criticism of China's political system by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? If so, why have they not publicly raised it in the same terms? If not, do they disagree with the Americans about the need for the Chinese to have political freedom?
	Trade with China is very important, but as it benefits both us and the Chinese, it is in neither the Chinese nor the British national interest to restrict it. For decades, the Government have tried quiet diplomacy and it has not worked, and nothing the Minister can say in his response will convince me that it has. Is not it better to combine openness to trade and business with frank criticism of Chinese human rights abuses?
	Article 5 of the universal declaration on human rights states:
	No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
	The Chinese Government are indisputably in violation of that important article, as well as the majority of the remaining 30 articles that I have not had time to mention.
	I ask the Government, rather than continuing the EU-China dialogue on human rights that has been going on for more than a decade, and the UK-China talks that have been going on for even longer, when will the talking end and the action begin? How can the Government persist unabashed with their trade with China in the knowledge that it continues to empower that oppressive regime? How can the Government continue to supply aid to fund programmes such as those of the Population Association of China, which contributes to the sterilisation of thousands of women and the abortion of millions of babies?
	It is time for our Government to stand up and implement strong measures to deter Chinese persistence in unconscionable human rights abuses. It is time for the UK to admonish international business for perpetuating the policies of the Chinese Government. It is time for UK to begin supplying funds directly to humanitarian groups that will unequivocally aid Chinese women and children. In the interests of a silenced population, it is time for the UK to end economic empowerment of the Chinese regime. It is time at long last for the British Government to speak out clearly, loudly and firmly against human rights abuses in China.

Ian Pearson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate and I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). In response to the hon. Member for Southend, West, I shall outline in broad terms the Government's assessment of the human rights situation before explaining what we are doing to encourage improvements.
	Over the past 25 years the Chinese Government have done an enormous amount to reduce poverty levels within China and to promote economic development. Impressive growth rates fuelled by a strong trade performance have enabled the country to take about a third of a billion people out of poverty. The World Bank estimates that in the 1980s and 1990s, China was responsible for 75 per cent. of poverty reduction in the developing world. The 11th five-year plan, which is expected to be approved at the forthcoming session of the National People's Congress, aims through harmonious development to reduce further the number of Chinese people living in poverty.
	As so often when talking about China, the numbers can be difficult to digest, but it is clear that the scale of transformation taking place in China is unprecedented and will have a global impact. We should not forget that China experienced great turmoil in the last century. War and famine have left a deep impression, so it is not surprising that many Chinese people focus on the right to an adequate standard of living, as set out in article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights. The Chinese Government know that their citizens are judging them on their ability to continue to deliver economic well-being.
	Economic growth has been accompanied by fundamental changes in Chinese society and a growing appreciation by individuals of their rights. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire that a great deal of change has occurred. Since the economic reforms began, there has been more freedom to move around China and to travel outside the country. Chinese citizens no longer need official permission to marry or divorce. There have also been welcome moves to develop the rule of law and some engagement with international institutions and foreign Governments on human rights issues. China ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in 2001. It also welcomed a visit by the UN working group on arbitrary detention in September 2004, and a visit by the UN special rapporteur on torture in November 2005.
	I also welcome the fact that, today, representatives of the Dalai Lama arrived in Beijing for their fifth round of talks with the Chinese Government. We hope that both sides will make serious efforts to address their differences and to try to find solutions.
	But for all the progress China has made, we continue to have a wide range of serious human rights concerns. Those concerns include the arbitrary harassment and detention of lawyers, journalists and activists, including trade unions; severe restrictions on freedom of association, speech and the practice of religious belief; ongoing extensive use of the death penalty, torture, forced labour; and the situation in Tibet and Xinjiang.
	China needs to make substantive progress on human rights, not only in alleviating poverty, although that is welcome. We want the Chinese Government to make steady progress with civil and political rights. That is why the UK Government have regularly, and at high level, lobbied the Chinese Government to issue a timetable for the ratification of the international covenant on civil and political rightsa covenant that, if ratified with minimal reservations and applied in its true spirit, could do much to improve the lives of China's citizens.
	The UK is pursuing a policy of critical dialogue and engagement that aims to lead to real progress in China. We are not remaining silent. The hon. Member for Southend, West obviously disagrees with our strategy, but the process of critical engagement is producing change and is the best possible means to ensure that further change takes place in the future. In practice, under that policy, we use a variety of mechanisms, including the UK-China human rights dialogue, ministerial contacts and EU mechanisms to raise concerns about certain practices or incidents in China, which, in our view, are incompatible with international human rights standards. We urge the Chinese Government to change their behaviour and to try to share our own practice and experience on human rights, where possible.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also funds a number of human rights projects in China that focus on priority topics, such as the death penalty and torture, and aims to work with those institutions that are interested in bringing Chinese practice into line with international standards.

David Drew: A simple thing that we could do is ask the Chinese to stop arbitrarily sending back North Korean migrs who have fled for their lives to China. North Korea has an even worse regime than China, and we know that many of those people face all sorts of problems when they go back to North Korea.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend knows that we raise those issues directly with the Chinese authorities.
	Obviously, we are not the only country that is concerned about the human rights situation in China. We encourage others, particularly our EU partners, to pursue a similar policy of critical engagement to help improve the situation. China is re-emerging on to the world stage and is taking an increasingly proactive role in international affairs, while rapidly becoming a global economic power.
	The UK wants a stable, predictable Chinese state to play its hand in world affairs responsibly and in accordance with international rules. That will enable everyonewhether Chinese, European or from another region or countryto benefit from the process of globalisation. It is clearly in the UK's interests to have a relationship with China on a number of levels and in a range of areas. We hope that, through our engagement, we can have an open exchange on how we and China view the international system and can both play a positive role in it.
	I should like to add a word about how trade figures in our relationship with China. Strong trade and investment links are essential in building relationships between countries, and both the UK and China benefit enormously from two-way trade. Isolationism is unhelpful. The British Government and others were rightly keen to see China join the World Trade Organisation, and China's WTO membership is good for the world trading system. However, there is no question of a trade-off between human rights and trade in our dealings with China. In our view, it is perfectly legitimate for the Government to support British exporters who are involved in the Chinese market, but such support is not at the expense of a robust approach on human rights.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent press coverage about the decision of Google to co-operate with the Chinese censors and, a few months ago, many non-governmental organisations expressed concern about the decision of Yahoo to share details of a journalist's user account with the authorities. The journalist, Shi Tao, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, was subsequently sentenced to 10 years in prison. It is a matter for Google, Yahoo and other internet companies to answer questions about their decisions to co-operate with the Chinese Government on internet restrictions. However, I would like to make it clear that the UK Government are very disappointed that the Chinese Government are taking such a hard line on limiting freedom of expression and information. We believe that both are essential to the development of a modern, stable and sustainable society.
	We have raised our concerns about the course that the Chinese Government are pursuing. We made freedom of expression a theme of our bilateral human rights dialogue with China in June 2005. We led a series of EU petitions during our presidency on a number of freedom-of-expression cases of concern to the EU, including the case of Shi Tao. We were pleased that one of the prisoners, Jiang Weiping was released early from prison in January this year. We have also, of course, regularly raised at high levels the jamming of the BBC World Service in Mandarin and the blocking of the BBC Mandarin language website.
	I should also like to respond to the hon. Gentleman on China's one-child policy. The UK Government have never questioned China's right or need to implement family planning policies, but we have made it clear that we believe such policies should be based on the principles of the international conference on population and developmentthat is on consent, not coercion.
	We have noted recent developments in China that outlaw any coercion in the course of family planning activities. We have raised concerns about reports of enforced sterilisation and abortion and expressed concern about the treatment of activists protesting about this policy. We did so most recently in the case of Chen Guangcheng, a lawyer who has campaigned about abuses of the one-child policy in Shandong, and we led three EU petitions on his case during our presidency, the most recent being on 29 December.
	Let me briefly consider our concerns about the freedom to practice religious belief in China. We have serious concerns about the treatment of Christians who are not members of state-sanctioned religious organisations. We are equally concerned about the ongoing political education campaign in Tibetan monasteries and the way that China implements policies on religious belief in Xinjiang. At the initiative of the UK, freedom to practice religious belief was a focus of the most recent EU-China human rights dialogue held in Beijing in October 2005.
	Our specific concerns about the way the Chinese authorities view religion and try to control it are well documented, and I spoke about the situation of religious believers in China at some length during a parliamentary debate in July last year. In view of the time, let me just add today that our exchanges at the EU dialogue confirmed our views about the severe restrictions in place in China. We urged the Chinese Government to review their policies on religion as they are certainly not in keeping with the provisions of international legislation.
	In conclusion, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the UK Government will continue to do all that they can to encourage improvements in the human rights situation in China. The Department for International Development remains engaged on poverty alleviation; the Department for Constitutional Affairs is supporting schemes to train Chinese lawyers and judges; and the Foreign Office will continue to engage robustly on human rights issues of concern. We will advocate change through our embassy in Beijing, through our regular UK-China human rights dialogue and through our project work. I assure the House that Ministers will continue to raise specific human rights issues with our Chinese counterparts at every appropriate opportunity.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Deferred Division

Northern Ireland

That the draft Rates (Capital Values, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 226.

Question accordingly agreed to.